The Population History of China (1368-1953) 9004682651, 9789004682658

Citation preview

45 mm

GLO BA L ECO N O M I C H I STO RY S E R I E S, 20 THE QUANTITATIVE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF CHINA, 7 SE R I E S E DI TO R S: Bas van LEEUWEN, Biblical Encyclopedia, 8 Yi XU, Robin PHILIPS and Meimei WANG 9 789004 682658

ISSN:brill.nl/be 2405-870X brill.com/qehc issn: 1874-3927

QEHC 7

The Population History of China (1368–1953)

CAO Shuji, Ph.D. is an honorary Professor at the Hong Kong Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences. His research areas include the history of China’s population and China’s economic environment.  He has published many journal articles and books, including A History of Chinese Immigrates (Ming Period) and A History of Chinese Immigrates (Qing Period) (Fudan University Press, 2022).

G E H S 20

CAO Shuji

From 1368 to 1953, China's administrative divisions were mainly composed of counties, prefectures, and provinces. This book shows the population figures, density, and changes in the provincial population in China during this period and population figures of each major city and town and its proportion in terms of the provincial population during this period―the urbanization rate. Data in this book is drawn partly from historical sources and partly from statistical-model-based calculations. The book also includes provincial population maps in 1393, and their original statistical models, population databases, and metadata.

GLOBAL ECONOMIC HISTORY SERIES / THE QUANTITATIVE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF CHINA

The Population History of China (1368–1953) CAO Shuji

The Population History of China (1368–1953)

Global Economic History Series volume 20

The Quantitative Economic History of China Series Editors Bas van Leeuwen (International Institute of Social History / Utrecht University) Yi Xu (Guangxi Normal University / Utrecht University) Robin Philips (Utrecht University / International Institute of Social History) Meimei Wang (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Editorial Board Bas van Bavel (Utrecht University) Bozhong Li (Tsinghua University) Debin Ma (Hitotsubashi University) Denggao Long (Tsinghua University) Jan Luiten van Zanden (Utrecht University) Jaime Reis (University of Lisbon) James Lee (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) Stephan Broadberry (University of Oxford) Zhihong Shi (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Zhengping Cheng (Tsinghua University)

volume 7 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/qehc

The Population History of China (1368–1953) By

Cao Shuji Translated by

Wan Hongyu Yang Yichen Li Mei Kizito Tekwa

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Part of the eighteenth-century remake of the twelfth-century original painting Along the River During the Qingming Festival by Zhang Zeduan. The remake is created by five Qing dynasty court painters (Chen Mu, Sun Hu, Jin Kun, Dai Hong and Cheng Zhidao) and is currently in the National Palace Museum in Taipei. The painting captures the daily life of people and the landscape of the capital, Bianjing (today’s Kaifeng) from the Northern Song period. Licensed under public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. This book was translated by Wan Hongyu, Yang Yichen, Li Mei and Kizito Tekwa from Shanghai International Studies University. The translation of the book was funded by the Chinese Fund for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Cao, Shuji, author. Title: The population history of China (1368-1953) / by Cao Shuji; translated by Wan Hongyu, Yang Yichen, Li Mei, Kizito Tekwa. Description: Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2024. | Series: The quantitative economic history of China; volume 7 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023048780 (print) | LCCN 2023048781 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004682658 (hardback ; alk. paper) | ISBN 9789004688933 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: China—Population—History. Classification: LCC HB3654.A3 C3543 2024 (print) | LCC HB3654.A3 (ebook) | DDC 304.60951—dc23/eng/20231019 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023048780 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023048781

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 2405-870X ISBN 978-90-04-6826-58 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-68893-3 (e-book) DOI 10.1163/9789004688933 Copyright 2024 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents List of Tables, Diagrams, and Maps vii 1

Introduction 1

2

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing 15

3

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period 41

4

The Military Population and the Population of National Minorities in the Ming Dynasty 72

5

The Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty 97

6

The Rapid Population Decline between the Ming and Qing Dynasties 132

7

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces in the Mid-Qing Dynasty 161

8

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province in the Mid-Qing Dynasty 189

9

Population by Prefecture in Northern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty 220

10

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population 253

11

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period 297

12

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty 328

13

The Urban Population in Northern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty 356

14

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty 382

vi

Contents

15

Urban Population of Shandong Province at the End of the Qing Dynasty 428

16

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty, the Examples of Zhili and Henan 464

17

Conclusion 508 Appendix 1: Population and Population Density of Regions in the Ming Dynasty 513 Appendix 2: The Number of Li, the Population of Inner Cities and Fu Captials in 1393 (Hongwu’s 26th Year) 521 Appendix 3: The Population of the County Headquarters (excluding Fucheng and Fuguo) and the Urbanization Rate of the Individual Fu in 1393 (Hongwu 26th Year) 526 Appendix 4: Urban Population and Urbanization Rate of Individual Fu in 1580 (Wanli 8th Year) 531 Appendix 5: Changes in the Population of the Individual Fu in the Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasties 536 Appendix 6: Population of the Individual Fu from 1393 to 1953 546 Appendix 7: Population of Individual Fu from 1680 to 1953 555 Appendix 8: Population of Fu and Towns in the Qing Dynasty 565 Glossary of Chinese Characters 580 Bibliography 581 Index 607

Tables, Diagrams, and Maps

Tables

1 Provincial population in 1381, 1391 and 1393 18 2 Households, population figures, and the male-female ratio of certain areas in 1391 21 The registered and actual population of Shanxi Province in Hongwu 3 24th year 49 Prefectural household and population in Guangzhou in Hongwu 24th year 65 4 Registered prefectural population in Sichuan in Hongwu 24th year 70 5 The population distribution of Guizhou in 1391 88 6 Yunnan population per fu in 1391 93 7 Population of Henan Fu during the Ming Dynasty 100 8 Provincial and regional population of the Ming Dynasty 124 9 10 Population changes of each province in the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties 157 11 Jiangning population figures from 1809–1953 168 12 County-level number of households and population ratio in Xiezhou in 1391, 1764, and 1953 242 13 The influence of the Taiping War on the population of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and other seven provinces 289 14 China’s population change from 1680 to 1953 295 15 Population of Hangzhou, Fuzhou, Nanchang, and Wuchang fu in the Ming Dynasty 302 16 Urban population of 40 fu (zhou) of nine areas in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) 309 17 The average population of 289 county capitals of 9 regions including Zhejiang in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) 320 18 The urban population and urbanization level of 15 provinces and areas in China in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) 323 19 Provincial urban population and urbanization rate in China in Wanli 8th year 355 20 Prefectural urban population of Shandong in 1776 363 21 Prefectural urban population of Zhili in 1776 366 22 Prefectural urban population of Henan in 1776 370 23 Prefectural urban population in Shanxi in 1776 374 24 Urban population of Shaanxi by prefecture in 1776 379 25 Cities and towns under Suzhou in the Qianlong period (1736–1796) 387

viii

Tables, Diagrams, and Maps

26 27

Population of cities and towns in Jiangsu by prefectures in 1776 391 Population of towns and cities in Zhejiang province by prefectures in 1776 396 28 Population of towns and cities in Anhui province by prefectures in 1776 397 29 Population of towns and cities in Jiangxi province by prefectures in 1776 401 30 Population of towns and cities in Hunan and Hubei provinces by prefectures in 1776 406 31 Population of towns and cities in Fujian and Guangdong provinces by prefectures in 1776 410 32 Population of towns and cities in Sichuan province by prefectures in 1776 413 33 Population of towns and cities in Guangxi province by prefectures in 1776 415 34 Population of towns and cities in Guizhou province by prefectures in 1776 419 35 Population of towns and cities in Yunnan province by prefectures in 1776 422 36 The urban population of the provinces across China in 1776 426 37 Population and urbanization ratios of counties in Shandong province in 1919 458 38 Relationship between the urban population and the total population of all provinces by prefecture in 1910 505 39 China’s population by province from 1393 to 1953 508 40 China’s urbanization rate from 1391–1953 (%) 512

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Diagrams The relevance between the prefectural population percentage of each province and the prefectural li percentage of each province in 1391 31 Correlation between the population of each fu in 1393 and in 1953 38 Relationship between population density and average annual population growth rate for the 32 fu in the early Ming Dynasty 116 The relationship between the civilian population and the population density of 36 ordinary prefectural capitals in 1391 310 The relationship between the urban li and the population density of 35 prefectural capitals 311 The relationship between the population density of 43 prefectures and the average population of 277 counties in Northern China in 1391 320 The relationship between the population density of 12 prefectures and the average population of 151 counties in Northern China in 1391 321 The relationship between the population density of 31 prefectures and the average population of 126 counties in Northern China in 1391 322

Tables, Diagrams, and Maps 9

ix

The relationships between the total population and urban population of 26 counties, including Qihe 453 10 Relationships between the total population and urban population of 48 counties including Zouping 454 11 Relationships between the total population and urban population of 74 counties including Qihe and Zouping 454 12 Relationship between the population of counties in Shandong province in 1915 and in 1953 respectively 462 13 Relationship between the urban population of counties in Shandong province in 1910 and the population of corresponding counties in 1953 463 14 The relationship between the urban population and total population of prefectures in Shandong, Zhili, and Henan provinces in 1910 500 15 Relationship between the urban population and total population of Shanxi and Shaanxi provinces by prefecture in 1910 501 16 Relationship between the urban population and the total population by prefecture in the six northern provinces in 1910 502 17 Relationship between the urban population and the total population of Sichuan by prefecture in 1910 503 18 Relationship between the urban population and the total population by prefecture in Jiangsu, Anhui and Zhejiang provinces in 1910 503 19 Relationship between the urban population and the total population of the eight southern provinces by prefecture in 1910 504 20 China’s population growth from 1393–1953 510



Maps

1 China’s population density in 1393 (26th year of Hongwu) 127 2 China’s population distribution in 1580 (Wanli 8th year) 130 3 China’s population density in 1580 (Wanli 8th year) 131 4 Drought distribution in China 1627–1643 134 5 The relationship between droughts and peasant wars of the late Ming Dynasty 136 6 The plagues of the Chongzhen period 139 7 Net population decline in the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties 159 8 Net population decline rate in the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties 160 The population loss during the second half of the 19th century 292 9 10 The population loss rate of the second half of the 19th century 293 11 The civilian population of ordinary prefectural capitals in 1393 313

x 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Tables, Diagrams, and Maps The total population of ordinary prefectural capitals in 1393 314 The prefectural civilian urbanization rate in 1393 325 The prefectural urbanization rate in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) 327 Distribution of prefectural cities and towns in 1580 353 Prefectural urbanization level in 1580 354 Distribution of cities and towns in the individual prefectures in 1776 424 Level of urbanization of the individual prefectures in 1776 425 Level of urbanization by prefecture in 1910 506

Chapter 1

Introduction Since the 20th century, there have been a number of research works and papers on the population history of China from 1368 to 1953. This chapter reviews and briefly comments on the most influential works, especially the research conducted by Ping-ti Ho. 1

Studies Prior to the Era of Ping-ti Ho

Studies by Wang Shida and Chen Da 1.1 In 1930, Wang Shida (1930) wrote a detailed review of the estimates of China’s population by 21 western missionaries, diplomats, and scholars from the first half of the 18th century to the 19th century, including the estimate of the famous demographer Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834).1 Such estimates, judging by current standards, are of little academic value. In 1932, while discussing the household registration system in 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year), Wang Shida (1932) briefly reviewed the compilation and examination of household registers in the early Qing Dynasty. He correctly held the view that the census register compilation and examination in the early Qing Dynasty originated from the lijia system in the Ming Dynasty. However, his perception of the subjects of the tax and corvée / labor services, population registration and compilation as men aged 16–60 was completely wrong.2 In 1946, Chen Da (1946:2) reviewed and commented briefly on the population data in the Qing Dynasty. He was right in thinking that “up to the beginning of the 18th century, China’s population data generally covered portions of, rather than, the entire population at the time of publication”. However, he was not entirely correct in assuming that “the classes of population excluded were limited to the hereditary slaves of Ning Kuo (Anhui Province), the musicians of Shansi, the barbers, the aborigines of the southwest, the boatmen of the coastal provinces, the bannermen of the Manchu garrisons in various provinces, and the inhabitants of certain areas under special political tutelage of the government” (1946:3). 1 Wang, S. (1930). Estimates of Population of Contemporary China. Social Science Journal, 1(3). 2 Wang, S. (1932). Household Registers of Ministry of Civil Affairs and Estimates of Population. Social Science Journal, 3(3), 264–265.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_002

2

Chapter 1

Moreover, Chen Da (1946) held the opinion, albeit without proper substantiation, that “from the 18th century until recently, there has been at times a tendency to exaggerate the total population thereby distorting the real demographic conditions.”3 1.2 Studies by Luo Ergang In 1949, Luo Ergang (1949) discussed the population pressure before the Taiping Rebellion in a lengthy article that included the population census methods and population data during the reign of Emperor Qianlong, Jiaqing, and Daoguang. Some of the ideas he espoused are worthy of note. First, regarding the compilation and examination of household registers in the early Qing Dynasty, Luo Ergang (1949) maintains, “the census of household registration in the early Qing Dynasty was conducted to collect ding tax. Ding and person data was under-reported, given that it was the basis of ding tax. Therefore, the population figures of that time were a direct reflection of the number of ding taxpayers.” The ding tax was still linked to the population as illustrated by Luo Ergang’s quotation of Zhang Yushu, Minister of the Board of Revenue in 1662 (Kangxi 1st year). Those registered in the book were ding taxpayers who were also registered household members. The total population was inherited from earlier generations and did not increase despite the division of households. This means it remained comparatively small. Those who were officials, imperial scholars, students in the imperial college, civil servants, army men were exempted from paying taxes. Private servants, guards and slaves were not registered. Therefore, a permanent discrepancy existed between the registered population and the real number of inhabitants.4 Zhang Yushu (1986) demonstrated his mastery of the population registration by pointing out that officials and people with achievements were exempted from ding tax, domesticated servants were not considered ding or mouth, the quota of ding or grain inherited from ancestors did not increase as the family grew. Consequently, the number of ding in the Yellow Registers had no bearing with the increase or decrease of population. However, Luo Ergang understood 3 Chen, D. (1981). Population in Modern China. (B. Liao, Trans.). Tianjin: Tianjin People’s Publishing House. (Original work published 1946). 4 Zhang, Y. (1986 reprint). Shunzhi Jian Hukou Shumu (Household Registers during the reign of Emperor Shunzhi). In Collection of Zhang Wenzhen (Vol. 7). In Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature (No. 1322) (pp. 533–534). Taipei: Commercial Press Tai Wan.

Introduction

3

the population registration of Emperor Shunzhi and Emperor Kangxi as “the most important evidence of the population paying ding tax”—a number that was far away from the original meaning of Yushu Zhang. As a matter of fact, “people who paid ding tax”, in Zhang Yushu’s words, were the ancestors at the founding of this system, which later turned to “quota of ding” rather than the “population” as Luo Ergang understood it. Moreover, like many others, Luo Ergang considered “No more levy on newborns in the greatest time” a new policy of Emperor Kangxi. However, it is a policy that had been implemented since the early years of Ming Dynasty. This notion is further elaborated in Ping-ti Ho’s study. Secondly, with regard to the Baojia System introduced after the Qianlong Dynasty, Luo Ergang’s description of “Household Registration I” in Volume 19 of General Examination of Qing Dynasty’s Registers and in Volume 11 of Jiaqing Hui Dian (Collection of Statutes) is an accurate representation of the system since 1741 (Qianlong 6th year) and the baojia Fa (Law of Baojia) implemented in 1757 (Qianlong 22nd year). The system ordered every ten households to build a security group pai, each ten pai a jia and tenjia a bao, to be headed by a pai headman, a li headman, and a bao headman respectively. Each household was required to fill in the household pai with the name, the age, the profession, and the number of population to be included in the book of pai. Subsequently, the book of pai was utilized in the compilation of the book of jia, then the book of bao which became the population register of the county and the prefecture. Luo Ergang continued to comment on the total population of each Dynasty and pointed out the under-registration in the 6th year of Qianlong as well as the registration since 1775 (Qianlong 40th year). Luo Ergang enumerated the provincial population data in 1787 (Qianlong 52nd year), 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), and 1842 (Daoguang 22nd year). In addition, he calculated the population density of these three years, which he compared with the population of each province in 1933. Moreover, he briefly explained the reasons for and driving forces behind population growth in various regions at different periods around 1775 (Qianlong 40th year).5 Later, Ping-ti Ho followed the same train of thought and emphasized the change of population data in the 40 years of Qianlong. Unfortunately, Ho failed to mention that the thought initially came from Luo Ergang. Thirdly, Luo Ergang discussed China’s land area and grain price, population migration, mountain development, and refugees. He also outlined the introduction and planting of American crops as well as the population theory at that 5 Luo, E. (1949). Population Pressure before the Taiping Rebellion. Collected Papers on the Economic History of Contemporary China, 8(1), 23–37.

4

Chapter 1

time, all under the theme “Population pressure before the Taiping Rebellion”. Luo Ergang’s studies were detailed in several chapters of Ping-ti Ho’s related works. It is unfortunate that Ping-ti Ho did not annotate his source. 2

Contributions of Ping-ti Ho

Ping-ti Ho made a great contribution to the population history of China. In 1959, he published a monograph entitled Studies on the Population of China, 1368–1953. In the preface, he described himself as “mainly concerned with interpreting available data of the early Qing period by tracing the changing institutional context of key population terms which led me as far back as 1368 (Hongwu 1st year)”.6 The success of this effort laid the foundation for a correct understanding of population data in the Ming and Qing dynasties. 2.1 Population Data in the Ming Dynasty Chapter one of Ho’s book, The Nature of Ming Population Data, proved two facts. First, population registration in most areas during the reign of Ming Taizu bore strong resemblances with the modern population registration, both in terms of rules and practical effects. Secondly, after Hongwu, the population registration system continued to exist, albeit with a significantly altered focus and statistical methods. Since then, there has been even greater under-registration. The population statistics of some areas in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties could only be regarded as tax paying units. For this reason, Ping-ti Ho (1989) believed that China’s population increased more or less linearly from 1368 (Hongwu 1st year) to 1600 (Wanli 28th year), despite the stagnation shown by the official population data of the Ming Dynasty. So, in the concluding chapter, Ping-ti Ho attempted to reconstruct the population of China in the Ming Dynasty. He believed that the total registered population of the five northern provinces increased from 15.5 million in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) to 26.7 million in 1542 (Jiajing 21st year). This was an increase of 73% with an average annual growth rate of 3.4‰ in a period of almost 150 years. However, the population growth of these northern provinces was not fully reflected in official statistics meaning that actual population growth figures in the north must be higher than suggested in the official figures. Even at that rate of growth, the population of northern China had at least doubled by 1601 (Wanli 28th year). At the same time, Ho believed that the population of southern China somehow seemed to be growing faster than that 6 Ho, P. (1989). Studies of Population of China, 1368–1953. Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Works Publishing House.

Introduction

5

of the north. Based on these assumptions, he suggested that China’s population increased from about 65 million in the late 14th century to about 150 million in 1601 (Wanli 28th year). In short, two characteristic features underscore Ping-ti Ho’s study of the Ming Dynasty population. In terms of institutional history, he determined the nature of population data in the Ming Dynasty, which, for most parts of China, was close to modern population registration. In terms of regional population data, he adopted what he thought was an appropriate population growth rate to estimate the population in the late Ming Dynasty. 2.2 Population Data in the Qing Dynasty Ping-ti Ho (1989) pointed out that ding, the main content of household registration in the early Qing Dynasty, had no relationship with the adult male population due to the fact that the ding tax had been completely transferred to the field tax by the 16th century. The original ding tax imposed during the Qing Dynasty was determined according to Ming Dynasty statistics given that provincial and local officials, whenever possible, followed the quotas of the late Ming Dynasty. Therefore, the total number of population registration every five years did not reflect the real population growth in the early Qing Dynasty. In the early 80 years of the Qing Dynasty, the tax / corvée reform with the main content of “a fusion of the poll tax with the field tax (tan ding ru mu)” to create “Ding” totally irrelevant with the adult male population. So, in many places, there were decimal numbers in “ding” calculation or “sheng”, “ge”, “shao (spoon)”, “cuo (pinch)” and other grain units. Ping-ti Ho (1989)pointed out that after the complete “fusion of the poll tax with the field tax”, most of the country’s ding registration was abolished. It was not until 1740 (Qianlong 5th year) it was considered necessary to establish a census system to be carried out by the Board of Revenue. However, ministers and some provincial officials showed little interest in the census, leaving the task of registering the entire population solely to the baojia security system, thus making it indirect registration based entirely on unpaid baojia filings by local governments. The role of the Baojia system was to maintain local order during 1741–1775 (Qianlong 6th year to Qianlong 40th year) and was very inconsistent in completing population registration. The emperor decided to overhaul the country’s baojia registration system when significant underregistration was revealed. As a result, there was great under-registration in the census of 1741–1775 (Qianlong 6th year to Qianlong 40th year), which theoretically represented the entire population of the whole country. He noted that in the winter of Qianlong 40th year, household registration went up for the first time because it was listed as an important function of the baojia system in the Qing Dynasty with a steadily improving baojia household

6

Chapter 1

registration technology. Judging from the number of people per household, sex ratio, and age structure, the Chinese population registration during 1775–1850 (Qianlong 41st year to Daoguang 30th year) was generally accurate. Still, due to China’s vast size and regional diversity, the numbers in some areas were underreported or inflated. Ho (1989) pointed out that in terms of the object and scope, the baojia household registration had changed after the Taiping Rebellion in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) in most parts of China. He further maintained that the provincial population data was even more confusing because it mostly was unconvincing with obvious under-registration in some provinces. In short, Ping-ti Ho’s study on the population of the Qing Dynasty also featured two aspects. In terms of the institutional history, he elaborated on the nature of ding and on the relationship between the compilation and examination of Ding and the baojia household registration. In terms of population data, he followed Luo Ergang in explaining the impact of the political situation in different periods of the Qing Dynasty on the baojia household registration system, as well as the implementation issues in the household registration system, and he laid out his perceptions of the quality of household registration data in different periods. 3

Studies in the Post Ping-ti Ho Era

Ping-ti Ho’s study was a precursor for further research at the institutional history level. In fact, he initiated a type of history study followed by many researchers in China. 3.1 The hu and kou in the Ming Dynasty On the concept of hu (household) in the Ming Dynasty: Ping-ti Ho (1989) traced the system back to the Hongwu period in the early Ming Dynasty, starting with the household certificate registration. Ten hu were organized into a jia, and ten jia into a li. Hu / the household constituted the foundation of the lijia system. Moreover, as far as the household certificate was concerned, the hu / household was regarded as the tax-paying unit and the basic unit of huangce (Yellow Registers). The adult male in the household, known as hu ding, was also liable to field tax. Liu Zhiwei (1988) pointed out that since the hu during the reign of Emperor Hongwu was a basic unit in the yellow register, the authorities tended to maintain the stability of the hu to match the system design of ten jia taking turns to deliver the corvée service. Meanwhile, the general public tended to divide

Introduction

7

the hu into small units to avoid labor service. This situation changed with the abolition of the Yellow Register in the middle period of the Ming Dynasty. Tax was no longer levied based on the size of the hu, rather, it was levied depending on the size of the property. Therefore, the concept of hu in the Yellow Registers shifted from referring to a natural family to more than two families or the whole clan.7 Therefore, the labor service originally undertaken by one or two people became the responsibility of two or more families as a household could contain several or even dozens of families. The word hu gradually lost its reference meaning to population and property and became a tax and grain registration unit. This change of hu in the Yellow Registers best explained the remarks of Zhang Yushu quoted above. From the perspective of population history, Ping-ti Ho (1989) believed that this change in the Ming Dynasty began during the reign of Emperor Yongle who, together with later governments, shifted their interest in hu from population to taxes and corvée. Since Yongle period, Hu has lost its meaning of a natural “family” and acquired the meaning of taxes and corvée. From the perspective of socio-economic history, Liu Zhiwei (1988) believed that the change in the Ming Dynasty resulted from the “Single Whip Method” tax reform that abolished the “corvée” burden. Then, hu could accommodate a variety of social relations, including blood, geographical and contractual, or other interest groups.8 The two explanations were not contradictory; instead, they were complementary. While acknowledging Ho’s contribution, Ge Jianxiong (1991) pointed out that “although the household registration during the reign of Emperor Ming Taizu was quite complete, the total number of households was not necessarily accurate.” The reason was that there were many problems in the data of 1381 (Hongwu 14th year), 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), and 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) recorded in Ming Shi Lu (Analects of the Ming Dynasty) and Houhu Zhi (Houhu Records) especially given that the total number of population increased and decreased randomly. He pointed to the discrepancy between the population registration system and the aggregation system of population data as the reason for the difference in data of different literatures in the same era.9

7 Liu, Z. (1988). On the Evolution of Hu (household) in the lijia System in the Pearl River Delta in the Ming and Qing Dynasty. Journal of Sun Yat-sen University, (3), 64–73. 8 Luo, Y., & Zhou, X. (2013). Studies of Institutional History in the Rural Area. An Interview of Prof. LIU Zhiwe. China’s Social Historical Review, 396–398. In J. Chang (Ed.), China’s Social Historical Review (pp. 396–398). Tianjin: Tianjin Classics Publishing House. 9 Ge, J. (1991). Demographic Development History of China. Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House, p. 230.

8

Chapter 1

This hypothesis sheds new light on dealing with similar differences in population data. 3.2 The Population in the Qing Dynasty and the Concept of Ding In terms of institutional history, western scholars accepted without any doubt Ping-ti Ho’s view regarding the nature of ding, a tax-paying unit that bore no relation to the population. In 1987, Pan Zhe and Chen Hua (1987) provide supporting evidence for Ping-ti Ho’s views on ding with a considerable volume of county-level data.10 However, three years later, Chen Hua (1990) negated himself and published a different opinion believing that the registration and aggregation in the Qing Dynasty were not for the whole population;11 instead, it referred to a limited part of the society, namely, the taxable adult male. In 1989, Chen Feng (1989) wrote that the ding amount in the early Qing Dynasty “did not represent the actual number of men aged 16–60, but the fixed number of taxable people”.12 This assertion was abundantly used with rich reference even though it was a repetition of Ping-ti Ho’s opinion. In 1991, Jiang Tao (1991:19) put forward a new way of understanding ding in accordance with Ping-ti Ho’s viewpoint. He pointed out: “the registration of ding could be understood as the ‘legal person’ in modern law, and it served as a taxable legal person”. In essence, the aggregation of ding was the computation of statistics of tax-paying legal persons rather than the number of natural persons.13 It was not until more than a decade later that Liu Zhiwei elaborated on the relationship between the natural person and his descendants in the early Ming Dynasty as well as the “general household” and “sub-household” as taxpayers that Jiang Tao’s statement became well-grounded. A closer look reveals that the relatively more recent studies on the population history of the Qing Dynasty tend to concentrate on the systemic level, particularly on the understanding of ding and related concepts. An example is Ho’s study of yuan’e rending (original ding quota) in the early Qing Dynasty which Ho believes was used to represent the number of households in the

10 Pan, Z., & Chen, H. (1987). On the ding in the Qing Dynasty. Research on the Economic History of China, (1), 95–110. 11 Chen, H. (1990). The Evolution of Household Registration in the Qing Dynasty. In Studies on the History of Qing Dynasty (Vol. 7) (p. 5). Beijing: Guangming Daily Press. 12 Chen, F. (1989). On the Population Registration in the early Qing Dynasty. In Ping Zhun Xue Kan (Vol. 5) (p. 270). Beijing: Guangming Daily Press. 13 Jiang, T. (1991). The Population History of Modern China. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Renmin Publishing House.

Introduction

9

late Ming times.14 To support his case, Ho (1989:31) employs statistics from places including Changsha Prefecture, Macheng County, Dangyang County, Luochuan County, and Shanghai County. I have found even more examples on the provincial level. According to “Provinces: Household and Population”, Vol. 1 of Jiangxi Tongzhi (The General Records of Jiangxi) under the reign of Emperor Jiajing (1522–1566), in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), Jiangxi province had 1,583,097 households. In “Appendix”, Vol. 23 Xijiang Zhi under the reign of Emperor Kangxi (1662–1722), the same number was documented but solely under the number of Nan Zi Cheng Ding (adult males). In Tax revenue, Vol. 2 Jiangxi Dazhi in the Wanli period (1573–1620), the number of adult males was 1,484,401, which is slightly smaller than the aforementioned number but shows signs of correlation. This indicates that, in Jiangxi, the officials of the early Ming period measured the adult male population by assuming that there was one adult male per household. This means the number in Xijiang Zhi, which is a duplicate of the number of households in the early Ming era, cannot be regarded as a mistake. Another example is Guangxi in 1578 (Wanli 6th year) where according to “Household and Population,” Vol. 30 of Guangxi Tongzhi (The General Records of Guangxi) under the reign of Yongzheng (1723–1735), the number of hu (household) was 218,000 and odd and the number of guochao yuan’e rending (the original ding quota of the current Dynasty) was 215,000 and odd. Again, the latter is likely to have been derived from the former. A similar pattern is also observed in other provinces. Challenges to Ho’s theory include a lack of knowledge about the situation in three provinces, i.e., Shanxi, Sichuan, and Huguang and the numbers of ding in the early Qing era, in fact, not matching the numbers of households and persons in the late Ming era in at least seven provinces including Jiangnan, Zhejiang, Zhili, Shandong, Henan, Shaanxi and Guizhou. The records in Vol. 74 of The General Records of Jiangnan and in Vol. 71 of The General Records of Zhejiang under the reign of Emperor Qianglong (1736–1796); and Vol. 12 of The General Records of Shandong under the reign of Emperor Yongzheng (1723–1735) all show that the original ding quotas in these three provinces were twice the household numbers of 1578 (Wanli 6th year). Therefore, I infer that these three provinces have counted the salt tax quota in yuan’e ren ding like it was done in Guangdong thereby doubling the composition of the ding quota (the original male ding quota plus the salt tax quota). The same pattern can be observed in Henan. 14 Ho, P. (1989). Studies on the Population of China, 1368–1953 (J. Ge, Trans.). Shanghai: Shanghai Classics Publishing House. (Original work published 1959).

10

Chapter 1

Finally, Zhang Xinmin and Hou Yangfang (2010) explored the sources of yuan’e rending in Da-qing Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Georgraphy of the Great Qing) taking Jiangnan area as an example; they’ve found out that all three editions quoted The General Records of Jiangnan in the Qianglong period (1736–1796) for the number of yuan’e rending, but did not stick to the number of Yuan’e rending for the early Qing Dynasty. They were either various combinations of the numbers of shizai ren(tun)ding (actual quotas) and its component dangchai ren(tun)ding (corvee quotas) and zisheng ren(tun)ding (new quotas), or a duplicate of the shizai ren(tun)ding in 1711 (Kangxi 50th year).15 This finding is critical to the clarification of the nature of Yuan’e rending in Da Qing YitongZhi and it serves as a warning to researchers against the non-discretionary use of data from Da Qing YitongZhi. However, Zhang and Hou’s research contributes few answers to Ho’s question about the relationship between Yuan’e rending in the early Qing period household numbers and the population in the late Ming era.16 In fact, another paper by Zhang Xinmin (2012) deserves even more attention from researchers of the Qing population history. I have noticed that the total number of yuan’e ren ding and zi sheng fu nan da xiao (the new population of males, females, and children) in Suzhou in Jiaqing Yitongzhi is close to the number of the entire population of Suzhou prefecture in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) as documented in Suzhou Records in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874) (with a difference of only 3,743). In an effort to account for the difference, Zhang adds the number of dang chai ren ding of Suzhou in 1731 (Yongzheng 9th year) documented in The General Records of Jiangnan in the Qianlong period (1736–1795) and Zi Sheng Fu Nan Da Xiao of Suzhou in Jiaqing Yitongzhi and get the exact number of the entire population of Suzhou in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) recorded in Suzhou Records. Thus, Zhang concludes that zisheng funan daxiao equals the population of Jiaqing 25th year minus Dang Chai Ren Ding of 1731 (Yongzheng 9th year). He also indicates that, in Jiangning prefecture, zi sheng fu nan da xiao equals the male population of Jiaqing 14th year minus 15 Zhang, X., & Hou, Y. (2010). Da-qing yitongzhi zhong “yuan’e rending” de laiyuan-yi jiangnan weili (Sources of “yuan’e rending” in Chorography the Great Qing: a case study of Jiangnan). Qingshi yanjiu (The Qing History Journal), (1), 37–46. 16 As a matter of fact, Zhang and Hou cited my research regarding the problems of Ho’s theory “Challenges to Ho’s theory include a lack of knowledge about the situation in three provinces, i.e. Shanxi, Sichuan, and Huguang and the numbers of ding in the early Qing era, in fact, not matching the numbers of households and persons in the late Ming era in at least seven provinces including Jiangnan, Zhejiang, Zhili, Shandong, Henan, Shaanxi and Guizhou”. But they did not use my analysis of the population data of the seven provinces.

Introduction

11

dang chai ren ding of 1731 (Yongzheng 9th year). Making use of these bits and pieces of data evidence of two prefectures in today’s Jiangsu Province, Zhang proves his hypothesis that zisheng funan daxiao was fabricated from the number of the entire or the male population minus dangchai rending of 1731 (Yongzheng 9th year).17 His findings indicate that researchers studying the Qing population at the prefectural level should be careful with zi sheng fu nan daxiao in Jiaqing Yitongzhi. Mistaken for the representation of the entire population, the number of zisheng funan daxiao has left out some dangchai rending of 1731 (Yongzheng 9th year). Of course, one should always use data with discretion, even when entire population figures found in registration books and local chorographies. The aforementioned two papers represent the most remarkable contribution by Chinese scholars in recent years to the study of the population system in the Qing period. Though they have not significantly improved Ho’s points, they have reminded researchers of the importance to be careful with the population data in all sources of literature. 4

Methodology: Regional Studies in Population History

4.1 Population History and Historical Demography In his preface to Studies on the Population of China, 1368–1953, Ho (1989) writes: “This monograph aims to interpret the nature of different types of population data and to suggest tentative historical explanations as to how and why China’s population has been able to grow in early modern and modern times. It therefore remains basically an essay in economic history and is not intended to be a demographic analysis, which must be undertaken by experts differently equipped than I.” John King Fairbank, in his foreword to Ho’s book, acknowledged Ho’s method: “Although concerned with population, Dr. Ho explicitly eschews quantitative analysis, for statistics of the modern or would-be-modern type—census data and government statistical reports designed for the purpose—are unavailable for China in the Ming and Ch’ing periods.” As Ho’s and Fairbank’s remarks indicate, what Ho conducted is a research of population history, rather than a research of historical demography. Generally 17 Zhang, X. (2012). Da Qing Yitong Zhi zhong “zisheng nanfu daxiao” kao—yi jiangsu weili (Sources of “zisheng nanfu daxiao” in Records of the Unity of the Great Qing: a case study of Jiangsu). Zhongguo jingji shi yanjiu (Researches in Chinese Economic History), (3), 161–170.

12

Chapter 1

speaking, the difference between the two is that the former is a type of history studies that analyzes the state of past populations by applying the methodology of history studies, while the latter is a type of demography that studies past populations by implementing modern demographical methodology, especially population statistics (which processes and analyzes indicators like births, marriages, deaths, family structure, etc.), to seek the correlations between changes in the statistics and changes in the social and natural environment of the time. Like Ho’s book, this is also a book of population history, not historical demography. It is necessary to highlight the fact that, statistical analysis is still a useful tool for the writing of population history, at least for the measurement of population growth. As a matter of fact, Ho does use statistical analysis in his research. One example is his deduction of the population of the late Ming period from presumed average growth rates of the populations in the south and the north of China. Another example is his evaluation of the reliability of the population statistics of the pre-1953 period based on the 1953 census-registration. The limitation of his study is that, like the scholars that come before and after him, Ho concentrates on the study of the total population of China, limiting his discussion to the provincial level only. Such a discussion, from today’s perspective, is too generalizing. 4.2 Refocusing on Regional Population as Research Subject Scholars, including Luo Ergang and Ho (1989), have conducted a lengthy study of the systemic aspects of the national population statistics of the Ming and Qing Dynasties. At this juncture, the time is ripe to move on toward a less generalizing direction. Worthy research subjects include the population statistics of the early Ming Dynasty, of 1776 (Qianglong 41th year), and thereafter, of any other significant point in history. Therefore, this study does not limit itself to the national or the provincial level; instead, it delves into administrative areas at a much lower level, i.e. at the county level, beginning from there, gathers data at the provincial and national levels from bottom to top. This is what I did in 2001 in Zhongguo Renkou Shi: Ming Shiqi (The Ming Dynasty, Vol. 4 of The Population History of China) and in 2003 in Zhongguo Renkou Shi: Qing Shiqi (The Qing Dynasty, Vol. 5 of The Population History of China).18 By 18 Cao, S. (2000). Ming Shiqi (The Ming Dynasty). In Zhongguo Renkou Shi (The Population History of China) (Vol. 4). Shanghai: Fudan University Press. Cao, S. (2001). Qing Shiqi (The Qing Dynasty). In Zhongguo Renkou Shi (The Population History of China) (Vol. 5). Shanghai: Fudan University Press.

Introduction

13

taking advantage of multiple calculation methods, this study reconstructs the population data of prefectures across China in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year), 1580 (Wanli 8th year), 1630 (Chongzhen 7th year), 1650 (Shunzhi 7th year), 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), 1880 (Guangxu 6th year), 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year), and the 1953 census. The study is equally an expansion and an extension of previous research in terms of time period and geographical coverage with the historical population data of southwest China, an area that had hitherto been understudied. Apparently, the project behind this book is ambitious considering that the author deals with not only an overall number for the country, but in multiple sets of statistics at multiple levels, from the county through the prefecture to the province. For example, in the Qing Dynasty, there were 1,500 administration areas at the county level, 350 at the prefectural level, and 18 at the provincial level. If each area had, say, 20 records, there would be about 37,000 numbers to be checked, evaluated, and calculated. Fortunately, such a massive endeavor can be broken down into smaller and more manageable projects. Since 1997, I have been processing these numbers in a top-down sequence from the population data at the provincial level through the prefectural level to the county level. The whole project came to a successful end in 2020. This book, as a streamlined version of my research findings, gives a brief account of the reconstructing process of population data with simplified quotations. What’s more, some supporting evidence is also omitted to suit the limited space. 4.3 Notes on the Historical Data Like Ho’s book, this book extracts data mainly from the official historical accounts of the Ming and Qing Dynasties as well as local Records at the provincial, prefectural, and county levels. However, the major distinction from Ho’s book is the attitude towards the local historical accounts. For Ho, local historical accounts served as examples to support his points, while, for me, they are the foundation for the study of the areas in question. I have cross-checked data from various editions of local historical accounts and compared them with official accounts. For example, I have cited several editions of Yongzhou Records to illustrate the discrepancies in the population data of Yongzhou prefecture in the Hongwu period (1368–1398), noting that some of the editions include the population of ethnic minorities, while others do not. Another example is the discrepancies between Ming Shilu (The Veritable Records of the Ming Dynasty) and Houhu Zhi (The Gazetteer of the Back Lake). After cross-checking many provincial historical accounts and other sources, I find that the provincial

14

Chapter 1

population data of 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) in Houhu Zhi is most likely the result of consulting records only, rather than a product of census. This would then explain why the data of only a few areas in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) appears more reasonable than those gathered two years earlier. As for the numbers in “The Board of Revenue: Household and Population,” Vol. 19 of Da Ming Hui Dian (Collected Statutes of the Ming Dynasty), my finding is that they are duplicates of the data in Houhu Zhi.

Chapter 2

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing As it has been pointed out earlier, although Ho has cleared up major problems concerning the population system of the Ming and Qing period, there is still much to be explored. Once the investigation gets down to the regional level, more research-worthy problems are likely to emerge. 1

Household Registration in the Hongwu Period (1368–1398)

1.1 The hutie Household Certificate System According to Vol. 58 of Ming Taizu Shilu (Veritable Records of Emperor Taizu of the Ming), in November of 1370 (Hongwu 3rd year), Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang (1328–1398) ordered the Board of Revenue to register the entire population and issue hutie (household certificates). Each certificate was numbered and bore a partial official seal to be matched with the other half of the seal on the registration document bearing the same number kept at the Board of Revenue. The fluctuations in population were documented by local registers, and they were reported annually to higher authorities. Here is the household certificate of a man called Wang Jifo. The Wang Jifo Household Place of Residence: 14 du, Qianmen County, Huizhou prefecture; Occupation: miscellaneous affairs; Number of persons: 5; Number of Males: 3; Adult Males: 2; Wang Jifo, aged 36; Older brother, aged 40; Male Children: 1, aged 4; Number of Females: 2; Wife: A-Li, aged 33; Older brother’s wife, aged 33; Property: No land; A house of 3 rooms; No livestock. Wang Foji keeps the certificate (the right half) with approval. Hongwu 4th year Month Day1 1 Luan, C. (1997). Mingdai huangce zhidu qiyuan kao (The Origin of the Yellow Register System of the Ming Dynasty). Zhongguo shehui jingji shi yanjiu (The Journal of Chinese Social and Economic History), (4), 40–41. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_003

16

Chapter 2

To sum up, the Wang Foji household was made up of two nuclear families consisting of three males and two females. The owner of the household, Wang Foji, had a son who was four years old. In addition to this certificate, I have come across another one that shows a person named Fu Ben, an inhabitant of Mi county, Henan Kaifeng prefecture in 1370 (Hongwu 3rd year) who had two daughters: a 13-year-old named Fu Jingshuang and a 19-year-old named Fu Zhaode.2 It therefore can be concluded that in the early years of the Hongwu period (1368–1398), recorded in a hutie household certificate were all members of a household, including all of the males, the females, even the young female children. The seven household certificates (hutie) of the early Hongwu period that have been kept so far register altogether 37 people, including 19 males and 18 females. This makes an average of 5.3 people per family, thereby reflecting the typical family size of five in China. The sex ratio is 106 males per 100 females, which is similar to that of modern China. Six out of the seven households were from the Jingshi region (present-day Jiangsu and Anhui provinces) and Zhejiang province. These three provinces are collectively known as Jiangnan area (south of the Yantze River) in the broad sense. As far as these areas are concerned, the statistics regarding family composition and sex ratio in the early Hongwu period fit our knowledge about the household and the sex make-ups of traditional Chinese society. Based on this finding, we can assume that in the Hongwu period (1368–1398), the average family-scale and sex ratio in the Jiangnan (south) area and even the whole nation were about the same as in modern China. This presumption is also one of the baselines that I use to evaluate the reliability of regional population data. Discrepancies in the Numbers of People per Household 1.2 According to “Household and population,” Vol. 9 of A General Record of Shanxi in Wanli period (1573–1620), the number of persons per household figures in at least 10 out of 22 counties in Taiyuan prefecture in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) meet the aforementioned baseline. These counties, it should be noted, were mainly near Taiyuan city or on route from Taiyuan, the capital of Shanxi, to Datong, a major city on the national border in the Hongwu period (1368–1398). Comparatively speaking, the remoter counties had more persons per household, a significant deviation from the baseline. This same pattern can be perceived in other prefectures in Shaanxi. According to “The Board of Revenue: Household and Population,” Vol. 19 of DaMing Huidian in Wanli period (1573–1620), the average number of persons 2 Tan, Q. (2006). Zaolin Zazu: Zhiji. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

17

per household in 18 counties in Jingshi prefecture in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) was 5.6, close to the average number from the household certificates. The prefectures that most resemble modern China in terms of family size include Songjiang, Suzhou, Changzhou, Huizhou, Ningguo, Chizhou, Guangde, and Fengyang. Statistics on the number of persons per household in these prefectures are between 4.7 and 5.6. Six of the prefectures, except Fengyang, were located in the so-called Jiangnan region to the south of the Yangtze River, the most economically developed region in China. Fengyang, the birthplace of Zhu Yuanzhang, was named Zhongdu (the central capital) and was one of the political centers in the early years of Zhu’s reign. As a result, its population data is as reliable as the data obtained in the Jiangnan region. More deviation from the baseline can be observed in Zhenjiang, Yangzhou, Chuzhou, and Taiping, which had between 6.0 and 6.6 persons per household. These four areas, except Zhenjiang, another Jiangnan prefecture, were all in the north bank of the Yangtze River but close to Nanjing, the capital city. As for other prefectures such as Hezhou, Luzhou, Anqing, Huai’an, and Xuzhou located north of the Yangtze River but more distant from the political center, their persons per household figures range between 7.0 and 8.0, a sharp deviation from the baseline. An exception is Yingtian prefecture in the Jingshi capital region, which had 7.3 persons per household. The deviation was not caused by a registry mistake but by the concentration of the rich and powerful in the capital city, many of whom lived with their big families. It is the registration of these people and their families in Yingtian that significantly increased the number of persons per household number when compared with nearby areas. It, therefore, can be concluded that the more economically developed and closer to the political center a region was, the more accurate its population registration was. The same pattern as in Shanxi and Jingshi can be observed across the nation. See Table 1. Among the 13 administrative areas at the provincial level across the country, the population to person per household ratio of only seven (Jingshi, Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Beiping, Huguang, Fujian, and Guangdong) met the baseline in 1381 and 1391. Furthermore, the ratio of only six (Jiangshi, Jiangxi, Huguang, Guangdong, Beiping, and Yunnan) in 1391 were reasonable. It was not until 1393 that the figure of Fujian started to appear reliable. The remarkably small figure in Fujian in 1391 was the result of a miscalculation by the local registers in places including Fuzhou and Jianning. This is explained in detail later. In Zhejiang, the number of persons per household was only 3.8 in 1391. According to “Gong Fu Zhi,” Vol. 17 of A General Record of Zhejiang during the reign of Emperor Jiajing (1522–1566), there were 2.138 million households and 10.488 million people in 1391, i.e., an average of 4.9 persons per household. This

18 table 1

Chapter 2 Provincial population in 1381, 1391 and 1393. Household unit: 10 thousand

Area

1381 Households

Jingshi Zhejiang Jiangxi Beiping Huguang Fujian Shandong Shanxi Henan Shaanxi Sichuan Guangdong Guangxi Yunnan Total

Persons

Persons per household

Households

194 215 155 34 79 81 75 60 31 29 21 71 21

1,024 1,055 898 189 459 384 520 403 189 216 146 317 146

5.3 4.9 5.8 5.6 5.8 4.7 6.9 6.7 6.1 7.4 7.0 4.5 7.0

1,066

5,946

5.6

188 228 157 35 74 82 72 59 33 29 23 61 21 8 1070

Note: The original documentation of the population of Guangdong in 1391 was 707,241, with 3.7 persons per household, which didn’t match the data of the other two years with more households and fewer persons per household. The total sum of all the provincial numbers in 1391 was 10 thousand more than the documented number, which leads to my conclusion that the actual number for the population of Guangdong in 1391 should be 607,241 instead of 707,241, as shown in Table 1. Source: The 1381 data quoted from Vol. 140 of Ming Taizu Shilu. The 1391 data is quoted from Vol. 214 of Ming Taizu Shilu, while the 1393 data quoted from Vol. 2 of Houhu Zhi, compiled by Zhao Guan and revised in the Tianqi period (1621–1627)

figure proves that the figures in Ming Taizu Shilu were wrong. As for Jiangxi, according to “Provinces: Household and Population,” Vol. 1 of A General Record of Jiangxi under the reign of Emperor Jiajing (1522–1566), there were 1.583 million households and 7.925 million people in the Hongwu period (1368–1398). By indicating that there were 5 persons per household, these figures meet the baseline. This number is out of sync with the one in Table 1, but it seems more accurate. However, no explanation is provided regarding the similarity with the numbers in 1381 and 1393.

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

1391

19

1393

Persons

Persons per household

Households

Persons

Persons per household

1,006 866 811 198 409 330 567 441 210 249 157 258 139 35 5,676

5.4 3.8 5.2 5.7 5.5 4.0 7.9 7.5 6.4 8.6 6.8 4.2 6.6 4.4 5.3

191 214 155 33 78 82 75 60 32 29 22 68 21 6 1066

1,076 1,049 898 193 470 392 526 407 191 232 147 301 148 26 6,056

5.6 4.9 5.8 5.8 6.0 4.8 7.0 6.8 6.0 8.0 6.7 4.4 7.0 4.3 5.7

There are still problems in those provinces with seemingly reasonable data. One example is the data of Jingshi area that has been discussed in earlier sections. In Huguang area, which was split into Hunan province and Hubei province under the reign of Emperor Kangxi (1662–1722), the respective numbers of persons per household of three Hunan prefectures, Yuezhou, Changde, and Yongzhou, were 4.0, 4.4, and 5.6,3 and the numbers of three Hubei prefectures, Xiangyang, Mianyang, and Huangzhou, were 5.6, 6.2 and 7.0. Compared with the data of Hunan, the data of the Hubei prefectures appear to be less reliable. Records of Zhending Fu, which was under the reign of Emperor Jiajing (1522–1566), recorded the data of only 21 counties in Beiping in the early years of the Hongwu period (1368–1398) and did not account for the population of 11 counties. These 21 counties had a total of 47,738 households and 475,182 people, an average of almost 10 people per household. 3 The data are from “Household and population” of Records of Yuezhou Fu in the Longqing period (1567–1572), Vol. 6 of Records of Changde Fu in the Jiaqing period (1522–1566) and Vol. 3 of Records of Yongzhou Fu in Hongwu 26th year (1393).

20

Chapter 2

However, within those provinces with unreliable overall numbers, some prefectures have reliable numbers. For example, among four prefectures in Shandong province, while the number of persons per household in Qingzhou, Laizhou, Yanzhou were between seven and ten, the number in Dongchang prefecture was only 4.6.4 The reliability of Dongchang data owes to the fact that the region was the destination of a government-organized migration during the Hongwu period (1368–1398). As a result, the population of the region was carefully registered and documented. As is shown in Table 1, the numbers of Jingshi and its nearby region, including Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Fujian, are around 5, which were the most reliable. The farther away from the capital, the bigger the number of persons per household, which, in most cases, exceeded 6. The only exception is Yunan, a military base situated at the southwest border, which was strategically important in the population investigation of the area. To sum up, in the Hongwu period (1368–1398), the quality of the population census was decided by the quality of the work by the local officials, which was, in turn, influenced by the distance of the administrative area from the political center. The farther away the officials were from the political center, the less supervision they received, the more mistakes they made, and the less reliable were the results of the population census. When I came across a significantly small number of persons per household, I kept the number of households and fixed the number of persons according to the five-person-per-household baseline, while for those areas with a significantly large average number of persons per household, I kept the number of persons without fixing the number of households given that the current study focuses on the population with due attention paid to gender ratio. 1.3 Discrepancies in the Sex Ratio Ho once cited the figures in Vol. 3 “Household and Population” of Records of Yongzhou Fu (1381–1382), in his discussion of the reliability of the population investigations and the resulting statistics of the time. The records show 73,005 households, 135,349 adult males, 123,970 adult females, 94,071 under-age males, and 58,228 under-age females with sex ratios of 109 for adults; 162 for children; and 125 for the general population. The number of persons per household was 5.6. 4 The data are from Vol. 7 of Records of Qingzhou Fu in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), Vol. 3 of Records of Laizhou Fu in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), Vol. 15 of Records of Yanzhou Fu in the Wanli period (1573–1620) and Old Records of Yongle in Vol. 8 of Records of Dongchang Fu in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820).

21

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

Apparently, the incredibly high sex ratio in Yongzhou resulted from the under-reporting of the number of girls. Some may suggest that the small number might be caused by the prevalent killing of young female children at the time. This assumption was groundless as the adult sex ratio would have been around 162 if that were the case. To date, we have not found any breakdown of the population identical to that of Yongzhou prefecture, while certain local historical accounts presented statistics on the gender composition of the population. Table 2 shows the male and female populations in some areas of Jingshi, such as Songjiang prefecture, Guangde departmental county, and Anqing prefecture. The sex ratio of Songjiang prefecture was about 109, and an average household of about 5 persons draws close to modern figures. In contrast, the size of Guangde departmental county’s average household was relatively larger table 2

Areas

Households, population figures, and the male-female ratio of certain areas in 1391

Households Persons

227,136 Songjiang Prefecture Guangde Zhou 29,905 Anqing Prefecture 52,038 Mayi County 792 Laiwu County 5,788 Anzhou Zhou 1,227 Quyang County 3,195

Males

Females Sex Persons per ratio household

1,094,666 571,433 523,233 109

4.8

167,884 102,441 65,442 157 406,974 217,303 189,671 115 6,422 3,724 2,698 127 51,738 37,921 13,817 274 11,659 7,680 3,979 193 48,033 33,069 14,964 221

5.6 7.8 8.1 8.9 9.5 15.0

Data sources: “Household and Population,” Records of Songjiang Fu, edited in the Zhengde period (1506–1521) of the Ming Dynasty (Vol. 6); “Food and Money,” Records of Guangde Prefecture, edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566) of the Ming Dynasty (Vol. 6); “Household and Population,” Records of Zhili Anqing Jun, edited in the Tianshun period (1457–1464) of the Ming Dynasty (Vol. 4); “Household and Population,” Records of Mayi County, edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620) of the Ming Dynasty (Part 1); “Household and Population,” A General Record of Shanxi, edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620) of the Ming Dynasty (Vol. 9); “Household and Population,” Laiwu County Records, edited in the period of the Republic of China (1912–1949) (Vol. 6); “Household and Population,” Anzhou Zhi (Anzhou Records), edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620) of the Ming Dynasty (Vol. 3); “Household and Population,” New Records of Quyang County, edited in the Kangxi period (1662–1722) of the Qing Dynasty (Vol. 4).

22

Chapter 2

compared to its significantly high sex ratio. This presupposes that the data ignored certain households as well as female children. The sex ratio of the population in Anqing prefecture was slightly higher than the modern figure, while the average household size is even far higher. It is unclear why certain households were neglected even though the sex ratio seemed basically normal. Logically, such an error is not frequently found in household statistics, given that the bigger size of the average household was often related to a higher sex ratio. Besides, it is found in Volume 19 of Da Ming Hui Dian revised during the Wanli period (1573–1620) that the average household had more than 7 persons in some areas of Jingshi such as Yingtian prefecture, Lu Zhou, Huai’an prefecture, Xu Zhou, and He Zhou located to the north of the Yangtze River. But the data is not discussed here because the bigger size of the average household in these areas may have presented certain systematic problems. The size of the average household in the four counties of Mayi, Laiwu, Anzhou, and Quyang exceeded the average size of 5 persons (per household), and their sex ratio was significantly higher. That is to say, the female population record in areas with a bigger size of the average household was apparently omitted. The cases of these four counties do not entirely represent the trend that a larger average household size is tantamount to a higher sex ratio. Nevertheless, it may be reasonable to presume so, albeit cautiously. If the household-person ratio were normal, the omission of the female population would be rare, and the total population would be more accurate. If each household has 4 to 6 persons, the presumed sex ratio was 110; if each household had 6 to 8 persons, the presumed sex ratio was between 120 and 130; if each household had 8 to 9 persons, the presumed sex ratio was 140; if each household had 9 or more persons, the presumed sex ratio was 150. The total population figures can be revised this way. Luan Chengxian maintains that the huangce System (Yellow Registers System) was formally put into effect in 1381 as a fundamental household registration and tax-corvée system in the Ming Dynasty. Based on his findings from a copy of the Yellow Registers manuscript in Huizhou prefecture during the Hongwu (1368–1398) and Yongle periods (1403–1424), Luan maintains that the Yellow Registers remained the official record of population data until the Yongle period when female children became under reported.5 In fact, such under registration was a pivotal factor influencing the quality of demographic surveys. The omission of the population of female children was more serious in remote areas compared with that in inland areas. Widely accepted after the

5 Luan, C. (1988). A Study of the Yellow Registers System in the Ming Dynasty. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

23

Yongle period, this practice of under reporting female children in the Yellow Registers has become an indisputable fact. Generally speaking, the size of the average household corresponds to the actual population when the household-person ratio is within the normal range. That is to say, for those areas with a smaller average household size, we tend to consider the household number and revise their population based on a standardized average household size of 5 persons. Likewise, for those areas with a larger average household size, we tend to consider their total number of persons. In general situations, we do not revise the household number given that our chief concern is the population. It can be proved from the above discussion that the omission of the population of female children was the most serious problem in demographic surveys during the Hongwu period. Registered Population and Actual Population 1.4 As for the registered population, the study tries to provide as much as possible households data by county so as to estimate the average number of households in that prefecture. The more samples there are, the more accurate the estimate will be. In the Ming Dynasty, li was sometimes used to estimate the population. The relation between li and population will be the subject of later analysis. If without any source available, we can estimate the population of the prefectures with no data record by making a comparative analysis, i.e., taking the population of the neighboring prefectures with data record as the control point and then reviewing the household data in other historical periods. After the estimation of the registered population, the data should be revised according to the household-person ratio and the sex ratio. In many areas, there are discrepancies between the registered population and the actual population owing to the omission of the female population. In view of the fact that we are still uncertain about the relationship between the household-person ratio deviation and the sex ratio deviation or that there may be no relevance between them, there is a need to revise the sex ratio according to the household-person ratio. 1.5 The Civilian Population of Han People in Inland Areas According to “huangce,” Vol. 20 of Daming Huidian, yimin (ethnic outsiders or uncivilized tribes) who did not submit to the Ming authority in the Yunnan frontiers in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) were not included in the population enumeration. It is known that the population data of Yunnan in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) left out the majority population of the national minorities who were not subject to the local administration. In that year, the data of other areas such as Sichuan, Huguang, Guangdong, and Guangxi also did not include the population of the national minorities there.

24

Chapter 2

The frontier areas during the Hongwu period (1368–1398) also included the vast part of the northern buzhengsi (provincial administration commissions) governing Liaodong, Shanxi, and Shaanxi where a large number of national minorities and some Han people inhabited. A special measure was taken with regard to the management of inhabitants of these areas. Gu Chen points out, “these areas that constituted half of the territory of the Ming Empire were subject to the administration of dusi or xingdusi departments and their subordinate wei suo as no administrative institution had been established there during the Ming (esp. early Ming) period.”6 In this case, the local management was under the administration of dusi or xingdusi departments which were affiliated with the military system. For instance, the dusi department of Liaodong governed part of today’s Liaoning province; Daning dusi and Wanquan dusi governed the western part of Liaoning province, the northern part of Hebei province and part of Inner Mongolia; Shanxi xingdusi governed the northern part of Shanxi province and its neighboring Inner Mongolia; Shaanxi xingdusi governed most areas of Gansu province. Generally speaking, there were only military garrisons in those areas where no prefectures or counties had been set up. The civilian population, if there was any, was subject to the management of military garrisons. Despite the fact that the administrative institutions were set up in Yunnan and Guizhou during the Yongle period (1403–1424), these two provinces functioned mainly as frontier defense locations. In Yunnan, for instance, some of its garrisons had jurisdiction over the population surrounding them as well as part of prefectures and counties in their localities. In short, the frontier defense in the Ming Dynasty was part of its territory and became the only administrative division of its border areas; the military wei was responsible for the management of population enumeration in these areas. The household and population figures of the Hongwu period available today account for the civilian population registration. They do not include the population of garrisons which consisted of three types of people: border patrol officers, military family dependents, and civilian population under the management of garrisons. Three pieces of evidence help to illustrate this fact. First, no other population is interpolated into the buzheng shi si-based population enumeration in which the total population of buzheng si is made up of the total population of all prefectures summing up the total population of all their counties. Second, there is no record of garrison population in the population record of Liaodong, Beiping xingdusi, Shanxi xingdusi, Shaanxi xing dusi, and 6 Gu, C. (1989). The Territorial Management System of the Ming Empire. Historical Research, (3).

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

25

Sichuan xingdusi, which are apparently not included in the fourteen bu zheng si. Third, taking Yunnan as an example and according to Vol. 194 of Mingtaizu Shilu, Yunnan dusi had jurisdiction over 1,301 military officers and 64,002 soldiers in 1388 (Hongwu 21st year), and the number of soldiers in Yunnan increased in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) when the emperor established garrisons nationwide. If the 76,000 households in Yunnan in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) were taken as the number of soldiers, the civil prefectures and counties under the management of Yunnan buzheng si would become a vacant shell without any population. Although the meaning of registered “hukou” varied in the middle Ming period, the convention of excluding the population of military garrisons from that of prefectures and counties remained unchanged. The population of each county in the early Jiajin period (1522–1566) can be found in “hukou (Household and Population),” Vol. 33 of A General Record of Shaanxi edited during the Jiajing period in which the population of each prefecture is composed of the total population of all counties affiliated to it while the population of military garrisons listed under each prefecture is not included in the total number. The provincial population is the total population of all prefectures, while the population of military garrisons in Gansu and Ningxia is not included in the total number. The regimes of other national minorities existed outside the areas controlled by the Ming government. In the north, the Mongolians retreating northwards still occupied vast areas of land and, with its powerful forces, posed a threat to the Ming Dynasty. In Liaodong, located in the northeast, the government of the Ming Dynasty was not stable and effective until 1403 (Yongle 1st year), when the Ming government began to set up wei suo to rule (or, in fact, contain) the three nüzhen tribes who came to haul down their flags. Similar cases can be found in Tibet, where the Ming government, unlike the Yuan Dynasty that had set up xuan zheng yuan (Advisory Council in charge of Tibetan affairs and religion) to facilitate direct and effective governance, established two military commissions for the capital guard—Dhus Gtsang and mDo-Kham. Like the Nurgan Regional Military Commission did, the xuan zheng yuan was established for the purpose of containment. The surveys and enumerations on the inhabitants in these areas were not taken into account within the administrative scope of the government during the whole Ming period. In addition, like any other population enumeration in history, the omission of the population of Jian Min (socially rejected lower class including tenant, servants, and slaves) was not rare in population enumeration during the Hongwu period (1368–1398). Mostly domestic servants were omitted as well as danmin (Tanga or Tangka people in the coastal area of Guangdong) who were also considered as jian min; a considerate number of them were listed under

26

Chapter 2

the national registration—military household register.7 For lack of access to sufficient data, we are unable to make a valuable estimation of the population of these unregistered jianmin and, thus, will not mention their population figures hereafter. 1.6 Collection and Compilation of Provincial Population Data If the omission resulting from a limited average household size and a small female population are not taken into account, it can be concluded that the household registration during the Hongwu period (1368–1398) basically included the civilian population of the inland areas. However, this does not mean that the population figures in the early Ming period we see today are accurate. It is one thing to raise questions about the integrity of household registration data, and it is another thing to determine whether the registration was accurately recorded in historical materials. Ping-ti Ho and other scholars did not seem to pay enough attention to this issue. From our comparison and verification of certain sets of provincial population data during the early Ming period in the officially compiled historical records, it can be concluded as follows: First, local magistrates were chiefly concerned about the tax-paying population in the second compilation of Yellow Registers in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). This approach led to a decrease in the population figure compared with the figures recorded ten years earlier. Second, the population data in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) was the re-enumeration of data from Houhu Huangce by the officials of the Board of Revenue as the decrease in 1391 had incurred the displeasure of the court. The new data was not gathered based on the results of any household census. Therefore, it had an obvious vestige of outright fabrication. Third, the court may have issued a decree in 1393 ordering the whole country to re-enumerate the population of 1391. Such a process was especially time-consuming due to different progression schedules in different places. The collection of data from these places was severely hampered by multiple difficulties that made it impossible to reach any results. Some places may have submitted re-enumeration reports, but even more places failed to do so. Since the alleged 1393—“26th year of the reign of Emperor Hongwu”—data had been formulated at the time of the deadline, the central government chose to ignore it. Therefore, the only accessible is recorded in local documents. As a matter of fact, the population recorded for 1393 is similar to the population recorded in 1391. Even though no explanation is provided, this finding is assumed to be true in the following discussion. 7 Liu, Z. (2010). Between the State and the Society: Studies on the lijia Tax and Corvée Systems in Guangdong during the Ming and Qing Periods. Beijing: China Renmin University Press.

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

27

In short, the population data of the Hongwu period (1368–1398) that we can access today is far from reality due to the fact that it has been influenced by various institutional or non-institutional factors. Therefore, it seems necessary to re-construct China’s population based on prefecture-level data during the Hongwu period. 2

Household Registration, lijia and weisuo

2.1 Huahu, Lianghu, and Yanhu In 1381 (Hongwu 14th year), Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang issued an edict on the revision and compilation of Yellow Registers on tax and corvée. The provisions were as follows: The items in all registers should be specified as a farm field, pond on a hill, house, wagon, boat, and so on. Official departments concerned must keep a record of the actual properties according to the style of the registers, and any faulty record on fabricated properties is forbidden. The general registers of the whole county should list the total property amount of its population, and there is no need to specify the properties of the individual Hua Hu.8 It can be concluded that in Yellow Registers, “huahu” is the equivalent of “household”; registers with the record on Hua Hu should be Li Ce (internal registers) or tu ce (maps and books) while the registers of a county solely keep a record of the total property amount. Obviously, huahu corresponded with the actual family during the Hongwu period (1368–1398). After certain generations, multiplication often resulted in the existence of several zihu (branch households). Due to strict control regarding the division of household by the court, many independent branch households or several households had to use the same old huahu; those newly registered households who did not transfer their tax and property on time to the new registers still kept their old household registration. As the government’s concern about households and ding was not to keep a record on the increasing or decreasing population but to guarantee revenue collection, the regular compilation of Yellow Registers became a formality, and the actual

8 Shen, S. The Board of Revenue 7. Household and Population 2. Yellow Registers. In Daming Huidian (Vol. 20) (p. 337).

28

Chapter 2

huahu was indeed an empty household name. This practice continued till the early Qing Dynasty. In March 1730 (Yongle 8th year), the Qing government adopted the method of “liansanban chuanfa” (using triplicate vouchers) to prevent its officials from bullying people and perverting justice. The provisions against this practice were as follows: The tax quota for huahu of each li and jia should be filled in a triplicate form before prefectures and counties begin to collect the land tax paid in crops. One copy of the form should be given to the household paying the land tax in crops, one to the payment undertaker, and another left to the county administration for verification. The taxation is household-based and is fulfilled according to Yellow Registers. Those petty officials or clerks who failed to give the receipt copies to those households who had paid the land tax in crops or did not impose land tax but still wrote out receipts would be charged with corruption or embezzlement and be thus subject to strict investigations.9 Huahu and zhizhao (receipt copy or voucher) appeared almost at the same time. The zhizhao convention of having triplicate receipts or vouchers was passed down to the later generations, and large numbers of zhizhao have been found from the contract documents of different places in China in which the type of household was de facto huahu who paid the land tax in crops irrespective of whether it was described as liang hu or huahu. Among the households responsible for tax and corvée, there were diverse types of huahu who paid the land tax in crops. There were also natural men with household names but without physical household registers; social communities composed by certain people; one common huahu household name shared by several households, or one household register used by several huahu who lived in the same village or another county, or who had the same names or different names, etc.10 The huahu-based taxation suggests that huahu cannot correspond to population.

9

See The provision in March of the 8th year of the reign of Emperor Yongzheng (1730) from The Imperial Edicts Issued through the Cabinet. Reprinted in the First Historical Archive of China (Eds.) (1999). A Collection of the Imperial Edicts in Chinese during the Reign of Emperor Yongzheng (Vol. 8) (pp. 113–114). Guangxi: Guangxi Normal University Press. 10 Cao, S. & Gao, Y. (2010). Songhupiao and shouliangzi: the intermediate procedure in the purchase and sale of land at Shicang of Songyang, Zhejiang. Journal of East China Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), (4), 28–36; Shan, L. & Cao, S. (2010). The

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

29

However, there were also exceptions. According to “Tax and Corvée: House­ hold and Population”, Vol. 4 of Records of Yongchuan County of Sichuan edited in 1894 (Guangxu 20th year), the court stipulated in 1671 (Kangxi 10th year) and 1690 (Kangxi 29th year) that those kekin (guest people or migrant people) who took their wives to settle down in Sichuan for land reclamation should be registered in the local household registration and should take the imperial examination. Therefore, the civilian household registration in Yongchuan County had new and old households. Both households who lived together in the villages and had to pay land tax on crops were called Liang Hu. Those who did not pay the land tax in crops, as well as the local people, were called Hua Hu, a category that had hitherto not been recorded in the country registration. Several Liang Hus, however, shared the common household registration and followed the Bao Jia system. In 1730 (Yongzheng 8th year), civilians entering Sichuan were incorporated with local people into baojia; in each Tuan, the numbers of families varied from tens to hundreds, and they were all called yanhu. Therefore, the total population of a county could be estimated based on the number of its yanhu. It is very important to clarify the nature of households in the Yellow Registers, given that this information was useful in estimating the regional population. 2.2 The Li Jia System Vol. 135 of Mingtaizu Shilu recorded Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang’s edict on the nationwide compilation of Yellow Registers, which stipulated that every 110 households are organized into one li whose headmen had to be 10 people with the largest number of adult males in their household and who paid more taxes; the remaining 100 households were divided into 10 jia and each jia had one headman. The register had to be revised every ten years. This system made it possible to extrapolate the household number of a region based on the knowledge of its jia number. However, it is unfortunate that the system had exceptions as “widows, widowers, orphans, childless people and those not liable to labor services had to be excluded from the 110 households but appended to them and listed separately in the registers under the name of odds and ends.” These people were called daiguan (appended population) or jiling (odds and ends). Each province organized its lijia according to its understanding of “appended population” and “odds and ends.” For instance, about 110 to 120 households were classified into one li in the prefectures of Henan, Zhending prefecture of evolution and nature of huahu based on Shicang documents. Journal of Social Sciences, (8), 119–129.

30

Chapter 2

Beiping, and the counties of the east Yanzhou prefecture of Shangdong; about 130 households were classified into one li in most prefectures of Jingshi; about 140 households were classified into one li in Jiangxi; about 150 to 160 households were classified into one li in Shanxi and Fujian. The number of households that were classified into one li was so vague in Xiangyang, Hubei, and in west Yanzhou prefecture that some of their counties classified 10 and up to 400 households into one li. Aside from such an extreme error, the gap between the household number of different places and the standard household number does not result from an error. Proof from various sources points to the fact that a significant discrepancy that existed between the classification of lijia and the governmental edict was impossible under the rigid laws imposed during the Hongwu period. Luan Chengxian (1998) proves that the standard classification of 110 households in the Li Jia system should be applied with restrictions to certain geographical ranges. For instance, if the 110 households of a 160-household natural village are classified into one li, the remaining 50 would have to be “appended households,” and they would be equally liable to tax and labor services. Therefore, the fact that the number of “formal households” in lijia is not consistent with the local population is harmless. In other words, lijia is not completely an organizational population unit despite the fact that it is, in some sense. The importance of tax and corvée collection apparently outweighs that of population organization.11 It is perceptible that the confusing figures stem from the loose requirements of the Ming government regarding the number of dai guan and jiling households. The Li Jia household registration bears internal resemblances with the household investigation and Yellow Registers that were used at the same time. Table 2 shows the population of each prefecture in 12 bu zheng si such as Beiping and Shandong and then calculates the percentage of the population of each prefecture from the provincial population; similarly, the li number of each prefecture from Daming Yitongzhi (Comprrehensive Georgraphy of the Great Ming Dynasty) compiled in the Tianshun period (1457–1464) is also shown, and its percentage among the provincial li number is calculated. There are altogether 101 sets of valid data, which, as illustrated in Diagram 1 below, have a high degree of significance based on the regression analysis. It is suggested that the organization of li by each province in the Tianshun period was closely related to the population registration in the Hongwu period. It means that most counties in the same province may have adopted similar 11 Luan, C. (1998). A Study of the Yellow Registers System in the Ming Dynasty. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

31

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing 0.5 0.45 0.4

y = 0.8963x + 0.0117 R² = 0.814

Population

0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Li Diagram 1

The relevance between the prefectural population percentage of each province and the prefectural li percentage of each province in 1391

standards to classify its li. Therefore, the li number in the Hongwu period can be used to estimate the population of certain regions or testify their population data calculated by other means. Also, the li number in the Tianshun period can be used to estimate or testify the population of the Hongwu period. The premise for such estimation is the stable li number of the administrative regions in a certain area from the Hongwu period to the Tianshun period, or the fluctuating li numbers proportionate to their population changes. In fact, the household changes in number during these periods were not consistent with the li changes. Details can be seen in Table 2 in the Appendix. For instance, the population of Beiping prefecture only accounted for 13.8% of the provincial (buzhengsi) population in the 24th year of the Hongwu period, while its li accounted for 26.2% of the provincial li number in the Tianshun period. The 0.124 difference was due to the fast population growth of Beiping prefecture after Emperor Yongle moved his feudal capital there from Nanjing in 1403. In contrast, the population of Kaifeng prefecture in Henan province accounted for 42.1% of the provincial population in the 24th year of the Hongwu period while its li accounted for 0.308 of the provincial li number in the Tianshun period; the 11.3% difference may result from the additional registration of a large number of refugees in the lijia system. The largest difference

32

Chapter 2

of 15.2% is with Guilin prefecture, whose population accounted for 39.7% of the provincial population in the 24th year of the Hongwu period while its li only accounted for 24.5% of the provincial li number in the Tianshun period. The reason may be similar with Kaifeng prefecture, where a significant unregistered population was added to the lijia population registration. Similar cases also happened in Shizhou prefecture, Huguang province where the registered population was fewer in the 24th year of the Hongwu period, and the lijia population registration was not conducted until the Tianshun period. If we do not consider Zhending prefecture, Beiping; Jianning prefecture, Fujian; and Qingyuan prefecture, Guangxi, whose respective difference was higher than 7%, the population percentage of the remaining 94 prefectures was more closely related to their prefectural li percentage. Please see Diagram 1 for more information. 2.3 Military Household Registers in Weisuo In the documents of the Ming Dynasty, military household registers had two primary senses: First, they referred to military personnel and their family dependents, i.e., what Gu Cheng called “wei household registration”; Second, they referred to the relatives of military personnel in their hometown who belonged to military household registers. We call the former “military household registers in weisuo” and the latter “military household registers in sub-prefectures and counties.” They were respectively under the jurisdiction of dudufu (commandery) and buzhengsi. The military household registers in weisuo could be transferred from those in sub-prefectures and counties only when all able-bodied men who were conscripted in military household registers in weisuo died and no one filled in as substitutes.12 Though subject to two different management systems, the two kinds of military household registers were closely related. The statistical books of the two military household registers also belonged to two different operational systems. According to “Military Book,” Vol. 90 of The Ming History, Emperor Hongwu, in the 20th year of his reign, mandated the Ministry of War to compile the books containing military household registers and hand them out to all military personnel in weisuo while keeping a duplicate copy at the Imperial Household Department. These books were a record of the personal information of military personnel, their relocating dates, and the number of their dependents. This shows that military personnel could take their family members to weisuo where they were stationed. The so-called 12 Gu, C. (1989). On wei household registration in the Ming Dynasty. Journal of Beijing Normal University, (5), 56–65.

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

33

“military household certificate” can be understood as the weisuo population register, which was similar to Yellow Registers in some sense. According to the “Military Book” of The Ming History, the standard size of wei-suo included a wei of 5,600 individuals, a thousand-household suo of 1,120 individuals, and a hundred-household suo of 112 individuals. In my previous studies, the military household number was estimated according to this standard size. In fact, the organizational units of the military wei in different places probably varied significantly and did not fit such a standard. In this book, the number of weisuo in different areas is specified in view of historical facts. In my previous studies, the military population during the Hongwu period was enumerated based on an average 3 persons per household because most military personnel were young and unmarried. Based on several engraving copies of weisuo historical accounts found in the Shunzhi period (1638–1661), Ma Shunping (2011) concluded in his recent study that the average number of persons per household in Shaanxi xingdusi in the Hongwu period was 2.83.13 This draws close to my estimation. However, the average number of persons per household was only 2.3 (i.e., one soldier with 1.3 family dependents) if we do not consider the Liangzhou wei, which accepted many Mongolians following their surrender. The present study adopts the standard household size of 3 persons to enumerate the military population of wei-suo while hoping for more reliable data in the future. 3

Temporal and Spatial Issues

Population estimation is not only concerned with social institutions but also with time, administrative regions, and other factors. 3.1 Standard Point of Time According to Ping-ti Ho’s study, a census was carried out nationwide in the Hongwu period of the Ming Dynasty. Though there were numerous problems associated with the census, the year 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) is considered the commencement point of systematic population enumeration in China during the recent 600 years. The data of 1393, in some literature, was just revised from the data of 1391. Such revision is applicable in certain areas but not in

13 Ma, S. (2011). A new discussion of the wei-suo population data of dusi in the Ming Dynasty: Evaluating two sets of the population data of Shaanxi xindusi in local historical accounts. Journal of Suzhou University of Science and Technology (Social Science), (4), 49–53.

34

Chapter 2

others where it has not produced the desired result.14 However, the standard point of time for the enumeration of the registered military population can be 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) period because “the weisuo system was established nationwide” in that year. In Daming Huidian edited in the Wanli period, the household data of 1491 (Hongzhi 4th year) and 1578 (Wanli 6th year) were the most accurate. However, only several prefectures and counties, including Beiping, Shandong, Henan, and the north of Jingshi area obtained relatively accurate household data. The prefectural and provincial data during the middle and later Ming period from most areas, especially the vast southern area, could not be used in the present study. Taking war, disaster, and emigration as evidence for population growth or decline, we managed to work out the total population of 1580 (Wanli 8th year) by extrapolating the population of those areas without recorded data according to the reliable data of some other areas. In this way, we develop the data in Table 1 of the Appendix “Regional population and population density in 1393–1580.” The 8th year of the Wanli period (1582) is not only a year closer to the 6th year chronicled in Daming Huidian but also a year when the plague was raging in the north. The influence of epidemic diseases, disasters, and wars at the end of the Ming Dynasty should be considered hereafter in the study of the population growth or reduction in different regions. Therefore, the 3rd year of the Chongzhen period (1630) and the 19th year of the Kangxi period (1680) should be considered the other two standard points of time in our enumeration of the population changes at the end of the Ming and Qing dynasties. Both Luo Ergang and Ping-ti Ho pointed out that by 1776 (Qianglong 41st year), the household baojia system in the Qing Dynasty had been transformed to the household enumeration system. This year was also the commencement point of population enumeration in the Qing Dynasty. Taking wars and famines as factors influencing China’s population, we consider 1850 (Daoguang 30th year), 1880 (Guangxu 6th year), and 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year) as the other three points of time for China’s population enumeration. A modern official census was undertaken in 1953. In order to better show the changing tendency of the Chinese population, we adjusted the administrative regions in 1953 to correspond to the administrative divisions at the prefectural level in the Qing Dynasty, particularly from 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). To enumerate the provincial population of the late Ming and the early Qing dynasties, we rely on the population growth rate during 1776–1820 and trace 14

Cao Shuji. (2000). The Ming Period. In Ge Zhaoxiong (Ed.). The History of Chinese Population (Vol. 4) (p. 54). Fudan Publishing House.

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

35

back the provincial population of the Qing Dynasty to 1680. In this way, we generate the data in Table 7 of Appendix “The provincial population in 1680–1953,” which includes the provincial population during the seven years: 1680, 1776, 1820, 1850, 1880, 1910, and 1953. 3.2 Standard Administrative Regions Standard administrative regions of the Ming Dynasty need to be formulated to enumerate the provincial population of the Ming Dynasty and to account for population changes in the late Ming and the early Qing dynasties. The administrative regions of the 1393 (26th year of the Hongwu period) could reasonably serve as the benchmark for the Ming Dynasty. We decided not to adopt the standard administrative division of the 8th year of the Wanli period introduced in Historical Atlas of China (chiefly edited by Tan Qixiang) because of its partial coverage of the whole Dynasty. Therefore, we need to offer a standardized solution to the administrative division of the Ming Dynasty. The method adopted is as follows: M, Q, and N, respectively, are used as the codes for 1393 of the Ming Dynasty, 1820 of the Qing Dynasty, and 1953 of the People’s Republic China. Then dividing MA prefecture in the Ming Dynasty into QB and QC prefectures in the Qing Dynasty would be represented as MA = QB + QC. If MA1 county of MA prefecture in the Ming Dynasty were under the administration of QB prefecture, that would be MA = QA + (QB*NA1/NB). In view of the fact that “prefecture” was not an official administrative region of P.R. China, we process the data at the county level and obtain the provincial data NB;15 QB refers to the provincial population data from Jiaqing Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Geography of the Jiangqing period) whose record on the administrative regions of the 25th year of the Jiaqing period (1820) can be used as the standard administrative division of the whole Qing Dynasty. The standardized method is the same as the method above. As a result, the population of the Qing Dynasty and that in 1953 in Table 5 and Table 6 of the Appendix is calculated according to the standard administrative division of the Ming Dynasty. The aim, we should emphasize here, is to investigate population changes during the late Ming and the early Qing dynasties and 1393–1953. 3.3 Population Growth Rate An example may further illustrate our method. In the “Records of Geography,” Vol. 62 of The Yuan History, there were altogether 1,200,772 households and 15 Cao, S. (2005). The Great Famine: Chinese Population in the Period of 1959–1961. Hongkong: Hongkong Times International Publishing Co., Ltd.

36

Chapter 2

6,214,195 inhabitants (4.8 persons per household) in the eight lu (administrative division similar to prefecture of the Ming Dynasty) of the Fujian region. There were 799,649 households and 3,875,127 inhabitants (4.8 persons per household) in Fuzhou lu. The large household number of Fuzhou lu accounted for 61% of the total households of the eight lu of Fujian, and its population accounted for 62% of the total population of the eight lu. In Jiaqing Yitongzhi, the household number of Fuzhou prefecture and Funing prefecture (divided from Fuzhou lu in the Yuan Dynasty) was 616,533, and their population was 3,353,092. Both figures were less than those in the Yuan Dynasty. It is inconceivable that the total household number and population of Fuzhou and Funing prefectures in the Qing Dynasty seemed to be less compared to those of the Yuan Dynasty despite the fact that, in the Jiaqing period of the Qing Dynasty, the household number in Fujian province was 3,150,000 and its population was as much as 16,750,000. The only possible reason is that the record of the household-population figures of Fuzhou lu in the Yuan Dynasty was exaggerated. This error resulted from the frequent changes in the administrative division of the Yuan Dynasty. From the 18th year of the Zhiyuan period (1281) to the 20th year (1283), Fuzhou city twice became the capital city of Fujian province and was finally incorporated into Zhejiang xingsheng (administrative province). Such frequent changes may have led to errors in household and population statistics given that, at a certain period, even the total household number of Fujian xingsheng was unavailable because of the dissolution of this administrative unit. With no idea of the so-called “Fujian xingsheng”, the compilers of local historical accounts mistakenly added its household number to the actual household number of Fuzhou lu in order to obtain the total household number of Fuzhou lu. Based on this fact, we take the household number of Fuzhou lu as the total household number of both Fuzhou lu and the eight lu of Fujian. The household number of the other seven lu is subtracted from the household number of Fuzhou lu in “Records of Geography” of The Yuan History, and the result is divided by 2. That gives rise to the 149,263 households and 768,048 inhabitants of Fuzhou lu in the Yuan Dynasty. The household number of Fuzhou lu in the Yuan Dynasty accounted for 19% of the total household number of the eight lu, and its population, 20% of the total population of the eight lu (5.1 persons per household). The above percentage data were close to the household-population percentage of Fuzhou prefecture in the total household-population figures of Fujian province in the Jiaqing period of the Qing Dynasty.

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

37

3.4 Analysis of Regional Population The Fuzhou case is a reminder for us that regional population changes developed at the same or similar rate regardless of whether those areas were influenced by industrialization or natural or man-made calamities. That is to say, the population of certain areas without any data record can be constructed according to this principle. For example, it has been found that the household-population data of Anqing fu in Jiaqing Yitongzhi was not accurate. According to the “Records of Geography” of The Ming History, the population of Anqing fu and that of Chizhou fu in 1393 were 423,000 and 199,000, respectively, accounting for 68% and 32% of their total population. If the population of wei suo is added, the above percentage figures would rise to 67% and 33%. Suppose these figures are also applied for 1820, then the population of Anqing fu would be 5,552,000 as opposed to the population of Chizhou, which is 2,755,000. This can be proved true by the population of 5,577,000 totaling yuan’e dingkou (original number of men and women) and zisheng dingkou (new-born generation) even though these two sets of data can never be added up in the studies of institutional history. We had not thought about verifying our bold estimation in the earlier analysis until 2010 when one of our students reminded me in class of the data in Wansheng Zhilue (A Brief Account of Wan [Anhui] Province), another historical account I had not mentioned at the time. It was recorded in this account that, according to the register report in 1545, “in Anqing fu, there were 5,559,000 inhabitants including the new-born generation, the original number of local men and women and other people in mintun.”16 This figure is similar with my estimation in the above analysis. Apparently, the average annual population growth rate in similar neighboring regions can be taken as a reference in calculating the average annual population growth rate in a certain region. 3.5 The Significance of the 1953 Data The cases of Anqing fu and Chizhou fu suggest that the population growth rates could be similar in areas with similar natural environments and devoid of serious natural disasters, social turbulence, large-scale emigration, and largescale industrialization and urbanization. That means the fu population percentage of each province in 1393 could be closely related to that in 1953. 16 Wansheng Zhilue (A Brief Account of Wan [Anhui] Province) (Vol. 1) (p. 8).

38

Chapter 2 0.7

0.7 0.6

0.4 0.3

0.4 0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1393

Diagram 2

y = 0.8491x + 0.0088 R² = 0.7555

0.5

1953

1953

0.5

0.6

y = 0.7532x + 0.0221 R² = 0.6286

0.5

0.6

0.7

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

1393

Correlation between the population of each fu in 1393 and in 1953

To verify such a hypothesis, we adjusted the population by county in 1953 to fit the population of each fu in 1393. Then we divide Jingshi area into the northern area of the Yangtze River and the southern area of the Yangtze River area rather than Jiangsu and Anhui. Through the regression analysis of the population percentage of 214 fuin their provincial population in 1393 and that of 214 fu in their provincial population in 1953, it can be concluded that the two sets of data have a positive correlation (see Diagram 2 for more details). This means that the population figures in the Ming and Qing dynasties can be revised or verified according to the population percentage of each fu in the provincial population in 1953. Altogether 35 fu are excluded in the diagram due to their frequent population changes.17 These include areas whose population increased rapidly due to urban development, such as Tianjin, Tangshan, Hankou, Wuxi, and Shanghai (respectively subject to the administration of Hejian, Yongping, Hanyang, Changzhou, and Songjiang fu); less populated areas in the Hongwu period (19 fu such as Dongchang, Yanzhou, Nanyang, Runing, Hanzhong, Gongchang, Lintao, Xiangyang, De’an, Mianyang, Datong, Fengyang, Jiujiang, Ganzhou, Nan’an, Lianzhou, Huizhou, Xunzhou, and Pingle); areas with higher population outflow in the mid-Ming Dynasty (Qingzhou and Huangzhou fu); areas afflicted withwars and disasters in the late Ming and the early Qing dynasties 17

Suppose the population of each fu accounted for A of the provincial population in 1953 and the fu population B of the provincial population in 1393. If A/B-1 ≥ 0.5, the population changes must be more frequent in the fu in question. The 1953 data in the book come from The Compilation of Census Statistics of People’s Republic of China: 1949–1985. Beijing: China Financial and Economic Publishing House, 1988.

0.7

Reinvestigating the Population of the Ming and Qing

39

(Yanqing, Huaiqing, Henan, and Pingyang fu); and areas influenced by the wars of the Taiping Rebellion (Yingtian, Huizhou, Guangde, Anqing, Jiaxing and Huzhou fu). It can be seen from Diagram 2 that the two sets of the 179 pairs of data are highly correlated. Therefore, we verify and revise the population data of different periods in the Qing Dynasty based on the 1953 census data. 4

The Present Study

4.1 On the Population of the Ming Dynasty In this book, we will reconstruct the population of inland areas in the Hongwu period (1368–1398) and that of frontier defense areas and national minorities based on the fu population data. We will also estimate the population of different areas in 1580 and 1630 according to reliable population growth rates then reconstruct the urban population of the Ming Dynasty. On the Population of the Qing Dynasty 4.2 Theoretically, the data of 1776 should represent the total population at the time. Unfortunately, the data of most areas was underestimated. It is a strenuous task to collect bits and pieces of data because the records of the population data by fu and county in the Qianlong period were absent from the official history books. We managed to reconstruct the fu population of each province in 1776 and 1680 by comparing and verifying the data by fu and by county and matching them with the fu population of the Ming Dynasty. Only in this way can the national population be reconstructed. The book mainly focuses on several provinces and areas as typical examples. There are many errors in the prefecture population data of each province in 1820 recorded in Daqing Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Geography of the Great Qing Dynasty) compiled in the Jiaqing period, (hereafter Jiaqing Yitongzhi) that most scholars have used in their studies. It is quite problematic to use them without careful data analysis. There are roughly three kinds of data errors in Jiaqing Yitongzhi. The first kind of errors are those caused by the absence of data. For instance, sometimes, the fu population data did not represent the total population data of their counties, some of which even did not have data records. The recorded household number of some fu was just half of their actual data. Accordingly, the population of these areas was only part of their actual total population. The second type of errors are those made by petty officials who compiled household data. Typical areas with such errors included Sichuan, not

40

Chapter 2

to mention other places. The third kind of errors were random errors made without any reason. Problems can be found when the data with these errors are compared with earlier and later data, especially the 1953 census data. The greatest influence on the population of the Qing Dynasty came from natural disasters and the wars in the late Qing period (especially wars during the Taiping Rebellion and those among Hui people in west China). These wars are briefly introduced in this book. (For details, please consult the other two Chinese versions of this book). The fu population data of each province in 1910 was quite problematic. The so-called “census” in the Xuantong period was no more than the figures of earlier household data of certain provinces petty officials thought they could conveniently add or subtract. In many areas, the stipulations on the census were not strictly carried out. Given that it is impossible to learn from any given data of its time, we need to calculate the fu population of each province (except for Sichuan) in 1910 by regressing the 1953 population.

Chapter 3

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period The Hongwu period census significantly underreports the non-interior and interior Han population. Therefore, any reconstruction of the population during the Hongwu period warrants the initial reconstruction of the local population. It should be noted that the inland population reconstruction starts at the prefecture-level administration. Note: Given the good quality of their data, the following localities are not discussed at this point. They are Jingshi, Jiangxi, Henan, and Shanxi, with records respectively from “hubu” (The Ministry of Revenue), Volume 19 of “Da Ming hui dian” edited in the Wanli period; “Pansheng hukou (Provincial Popu­ lation),” Volume 1 of “Jiangxi Tongzhi (The General Records of Jiangxi)” edited in the Jiajing period; Volume 3 and Volume 11 of “Henan zongzhi (The General Records of Henan)” edited in the Chenghua period; “Hukou,” Volume 9 of “The General Records of Shanxi,” edited in the Wanli period. 1

Beiping

Beiping, in the Hongwu period, was a jurisdiction equivalent to today’s firstlevel administrative regions, including Beijing city, Tianjin city, and Hebei Province. After the relocation of the capital, Beiping became Jingshi, also known as North Zhili. In Table 1, the number of households in Hongwu 24th year was 341,000, while the population was 1,981,000. Unfortunately, this data is underestimated, given that the population analysis by prefecture is as follows: 1.1 Beiping Fu According to “hukou” (Household Records), Vol. 8 of Shuntian Fu Zhi (Shuntian Fu Records) edited in the Yongle period, in 1369 (Hongwu 2nd year), Beiping registered 14,974 households and had a population of 48,973. In the 8th year, it registered a total of 80,666 actual households and had a population of 323,451. The population of Beiping increased significantly from Hongwu 2nd year to Hongwu 8th year mainly because of the migration of people from behind the mountain (north of Yanshan mountain, including the present Xuanhua in Hebei and Liaoyang in Liaoning provinces). From Hongwu 8th year, the growth in population was mainly natural due to the decline in the inflow of

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_004

42

Chapter 3

people from other parts of the country.1 The following paragraph certified during the Hongwu period, the average growth rate of Baoding’s population was 6.9%. Therefore, it can be estimated that in Hongwu 24th year, the population was 361,000. Judging from the individual county situation, the household-person ratio became unreasonable in Hongwu 24th year, thereby skewing the census data. For example, according to Volume 4 “TianFu Zhi Hu Kou (Land Taxes Households)” of Xianghe County Records, edited in the Kangxi period, in Hongwu 24th year, there were 3,950 households and a population of 43,435, including an average of 11 persons per household. Another example in “Hukou”, Volume 5 of “Shulu County Records” edited in the Guangxu period, a total of 1,870 households and a population of 12,440 was registered in the Hongwu period. That means there was an average of 6.7 persons per household. According to “Military Establishment,” Volume 90 of the Ming Shi (the History of Ming Dynasty), the garrison of Beiping dusi division mainly stationed within Beiping comprised of a total of 13 wei (1 wei governs 5 thousand-hu suo) and 1 suo, and an additional 3 wei at Yanshan for a total of 16 wei and 1 suo. Based on this data, it can be estimated that there was approximately 255,000 military personnel granted that each personnel had two dependents. 1.2 Baoding Fu According to “Hukou” Volume 6 of Hongzhi “Baoding County Records,” a total of 53,400 households and a population of 318,908 were recorded in Hongwu 10th year and 56970 households and a population of 351,320 in Hongwu 24th year. In fourteen years, the average annual growth rate of both households and population was 4.6‰ and 6.9‰, respectively. Since after Hongwu 8th year, there was no inflow of people from behind-the mountain areas, population growth during this period is considered natural. In Hongwu 24th year, the average number of persons per household in Baoding was 6.2, higher than normal. Based on the analysis above, it is probable that the census in this area left out the female population. Volume 3 of Anzhou Records edited in the Wanli period recorded that in Hongwu 24th year, Anzhou in Baoding fu had a total of 1,227 households (civilians and military personnel included) and a total population of 11,659. That means there was an average of 9.5 person per household. The male population was 7,676, while the female population was 3,983 for a gender ratio of 193. The gender ratio and household to person ratio deviated significantly from the normal value. This 1 Cao, S. (1997). The Ming Period. In The History of Chinese Immigration (Vol. 5) (pp. 216–224). Fuzhou: Fujian People Publishing House.

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

43

is because the average number of persons per household in Baoding fu was not as high as 9.5 and the under-reported female population was not as low as in Anzhou. Suppose the registered population of Baoding was 130, and the actual gender ratio was 110, then the actual population would have been about 380,000.2 1.3 Zhending Fu During the Hongwu period, Zhengding fu had jurisdiction over 32 prefectures and counties. According to “ji fu” (Taxes), Volume 12 of Zhengding fu Records edited in the Jiajing period and “hukou”, Volume 10 of “Zhengding fu Records” edited in the Qianlong period, there were 56,971 households and a population of 548,270 in the 25 counties of Zhengding Prefecture. Consequently, there ought to be 701,786 registered inhabitants in Zhengding Prefecture during the Hongwu period based on a scale of 21,931 persons per county. The number of households and persons in Hongwu 14th year and 24th year was recorded in “Min she zhi (People and Society),” Volume 2 of “Baixiang County Records” edited in the Kangxi period. This means the data recorded in Zhengding fu Records (Jiajing edition) belonged to Hongwu 14th year, given that the average number of person per household was 9.6. There was a significant underestimation of the number of households and underreporting of the female population. According to “Hukou,” Vol. 4 of “Quyang County New Records” (Kangxi Edition), the male population was 33,180 male while the female population was 15,011 during the Hongwu period with a gender ratio of up to 221. The average number of persons per household in Quyang county was 15, much higher than the number in Zhengding Prefecture. Therefore, the gender ratio of the registered population could be as high as 150 in Zhengding fu. Likewise, calculated according to the actual population gender ratio of 110, the actual population of Zhengding Prefecture in Hongwu 14th year ought to be about 800,000. From around Hongwu 2nd year, Shandong, mainly the northern Qingzhou and Jinan fu, had welcomed about 350,000 immigrants from Zhengding fu and

2 Here is the calculation: Before the adjustment, suppose the total population is z, the population sex ratio is e (1 female to 1 male), the male population is x and the female population is y. After the adjustment, the total population is p, the population sex ratio is f, the female population is g and the male population is still x.Known: x + y = z, x = ey, g = x/f; then: ey + y = z, y = z/(e + x), x = z − y = z − [z/(e + 1)], g = {z − [z/(e + 1)]}/f; Adjusted total population: p = x + g = z − [z/(e + 1)] + {z − [z/(e + 1)]}/f = [1 + 1 / f][z − z/(e + 1)]; Adjust population gender ratio to 1.1, namely, f = 1.1, and the formula could be reduced to: p = 1.909 z [1 − 1/(e + 1)]. The actual population estimates below are treated as such, not as specified otherwise.

44

Chapter 3

surrounding.3 Suppose 300,000 people migrated from Zhengding fu, then it would be plausible to suggest that the population growth from Hongwu 14th year to 24th year was offset by emigration. Moreover, due to large-scale emigration, it was only possible to assess the population of Zhengding fu at 700,000. In addition, there were about 17,000 military personnel in Zhengding. 1.4 Other Prefectures There is no population data for Hejian, Yongping, Shunde, Guangping, and Daiming fu (prefecture) in the Hongwu period. As a result, estimates had to be made using the “regional population proportion analysis” methodology. In our estimate, the administrative regions have been adjusted and the specific process omitted. Given that in the Hongwu period, the lijia formulation in Beiping area was in line with the standard, it was possible to verify the number of households and the population based on lijia data. During the Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Jiaqing period, the population of Hejian fu and Baoding fu were approximately the same.4 Therefore, like Baoding fu, there were about 350,000 registered inhabitants and a total population of about 380,000 in Hejian fu in Hongwu 24th year. In the Yuan Dynasty, the number of households in Yongping lu (an administrative division higher than fu) was 19% that of the number in Baoding lu. The percentage rose to 39% during the Jiaqing period in the Qing Dynasty. The growth in the household population ratio resulted from a significant number of military personnel that transformed into civilians. Following the household population ratio of Yuan Dynasty in Hongwu 24th year, Yongping Prefecture had 70,000 registered inhabitants and a total population of about 76,000. There were two wei stationed in Yongping fu in the Hongwu period with a total of 34,000 military personnel.5 In the Yuan Dynasty, the number of households in Shunde lu was only 21% compared to the households in Zhengding. The percentage increased to 24% in the Jiaqing period in the Qing Dynasty. Thus, it is estimated that in the Hongwu period, Shunde had 150,000 registered inhabitants and a population

3 Cao, S. (1997). The Ming Period. In The History of Immigration in China (Vol. 5) (pp. 160–214). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House. 4 In general, the population data during the Yuan Dynasty and the Jiaqing period in the Qing Dynasty are cited from Liang, F. (1980). Statistics of Population, Land and Field Taxes of China in History. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House. 5 The source and quantity of the military population are not mentioned here. Rather, they are listed on the database. Explanation about population will be made only for wei and suo with extra configuration.

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

45

of 170,000. This estimate is also supported by the number from the lijia system, the process of which is omitted. In the Yuan Dynasty, the number of households in Guangping lu was 29% of the total number of households in Zhengding, compared with 31% in the Qing Dynasty. Therefore, it can be deduced that Guangping fu had 30% of the population of Zhengding in Hongwu 24th year with 210,000 registered inhabitants. This estimate is also supported by the data from the lijia system. After deducting the number of households in Qinghe County, the total number of households in Daming lu during the Yuan Dynasty was 62,399, that is, 43% of the total in Zhengding. Accordingly, Daming fu in Hongwu 24th year had about 300,000 registered inhabitants and a total population of 340,000. Hukou, Volume 3 of Zhengde Daming fu Records recorded that during the Hongwu period, households in Daming fu ten countries were grouped into 318 li. There were altogether 38,000 households and a population of 290,000 in Daming fu calculated at 120 households per li and at 7.5 per household on average. This is more or less the same compared with the regional data. The tradition of li formulation based on the actual number of households in Daming fu continued until the Hongzhi period. According to Volume 3 of Zhengde Daming fu Records, there were 579 li and about 69,480 households at 120 households per li in Hongzhi 15th year. This number is extremely close to the number recorded in Volume 2 of the Records. As in the Ming Dynasty, most of the North China areas merged in the “li tun” the system of li, which was formulated in accordance with the government provisions, had expanded with the increase of population. 1.5 Summary In Hongwu 24th year, Beiping had a total population of 2.42 million, much more than the 1.98 million presented in Table 1. Compared with the Hongwu period, Beiping area had undergone several transformations. There was the “Jingnan Battle,” Emperor Yongle’s “Relocating the capital to Beiping” after the Hongwu period, and the population distribution based on the li & she formulation had changed considerably. Therefore, it is hard to verify the data recorded in Daming Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Georgraphy of the Ming Dynasty). 2

Shandong

In the Ming Dynasty, Shandong buzhengsi (Province) had jurisdiction over six fu (prefecture), including Jinan fu, Dongchang fu, Yanzhou fu, Qingzhou fu, Dengzhou fu, and Laizhou fu. According to Table 1, in Hongwu 14th year,

46

Chapter 3

Shandong had 752,000 households and a population of 519,700,000 inhabitants, including 6.9 persons per household on average. In Hongwu 24th year, Shandong had 720,000 households and 567,300 persons, including 7.9 persons per household on average. It is abnormal that in Hongwu 24th year, the total population was less than the number of total households. Volume 8 “Hukou” of Jiajing “Shandong Tongzhi” (The General Records of Shandong) borrowed the data of Hongwu 26th year in the “houhuzhi” given that its population data of 754,000 households and 525,600 persons coincided with the population data of Hongwu 24th year. 2.1 Dongchang Fu There are two sets of numbers regarding the population of Dongchang fu (Prefecture) in the early Ming Dynasty as laid out in Volume 8 “Hukou” of Jiaqing Dongchang fu Records. One cited from The Old Records of Yongle, which recorded “24,029 households and a population of 110,192 at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty”; the other cited from the Wanli Records claiming “Dongchang fu had 2,270 households and a population of 24,234 in Hongwu 24th year.” It turned out that the author of Wanli Records mistook the population data of Liaocheng County for that of Dongchang fu. So, the statistics provided in The Old Yongle Records should actually be population data of Dongchang fu in the Hongwu 24th year. The average number of persons per household was 4.6. The census of Dongchang fu was very standard. 2.2 Qingzhou Fu Section Hukou, Volume 7 of Jiajing “Qingzhou Fuzhi” (Qingzhou Records) recorded that in Hongwu 24th year, there were 213,533 households, including 1,689,946 inhabitants with an average household of 7.9 persons. At the county level, the data of Yishui and Rizhao counties were identical. So, it is unclear which of the data was mistakenly copied. Due to the large number of persons per household, it is suspected that a considerable number of women in the household survey were under-reported. According to the analysis, such a large number of persons per household ought to correspond to a gender ratio of about 140. With the adjusted gender ratio of 110, the population of Qingzhou fu ought to be 1,880,000. 2.3 Laizhou Fu Section Hukou, Volume 3 of Laizhou fu Records in the Wanli period recorded that in Hongwu 24th year, there were 99,203 households and a population of 760,297, including 7.7 persons per household. Adjusted in the same way as that of Qingzhou fu, the actual population of Laizhou fu had about 850.000.

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

47

2.4 Yanzhou Fu Section Household Records, Volume 15 of Yanzhou Fu Records compiled in the Wanli period contained an incomplete record of the population of 10 out of 23 counties. The 10 counties included Qufu, Zou County, Sishui, Jinxiang, Yutai, Shan county, Chengwu, Jining, and Juye and the total number of households was 37,341, including 300,630 persons. According to the “Da Ming Yitong Zhi,” the ten counties in the Tianshun period had 271 li, accounting for 32.5% of the total li in the prefecture (excluding Caozhou set up in the Zhengtong period). Assuming that this proportion was also the population6 in the Hongwu period, Yanzhou fu had an estimated 920,000 registered inhabitants in the Hongwu 24th year. Due to the large population of the above-mentioned ten counties, it is estimated that the gender ratio of the registered population of Yanzhou was as high as 150, and the actual population, after adjustment, was 1,050,000. 2.5 Dengzhou Fu According to Volume 2 “Hukou” of Republic of China’s Laiyang County Records, Volume I “min fu” (People) of Jiajing’s Ninghai fu Records, Volume 3 “Hukou” of Wanli’s Fushan County Records, there were 53,403 households and a total population of 479,169 inhabitants. Dengzhou fu in the Tianshun period had, altogether, 543 li in a total of 8 counties, including Laiyang, Ninghai, Wendeng, and Fushan that had 323 li, that is, a total of 59.5%. Assuming that this proportion represented the population proportion of Dengzhou in the Hongwu 24th year, the total number of registered population7 ought to have been about 805,000. 2.6 Jinan Fu There was no record of the population of Jinan fu, and there was very little information regarding the county-level population. Therefore, no estimation is possible. As previously remarked, Shandong had 525,600 registered inhabitants during Hongwu 24th year. Here the five prefectures of Shandong, Jinan excluded, had 4270,000 registered inhabitants. Therefore, it is estimated that the difference of 986,000 is the registered population of Jinan fu. 6 In Chapter 5 of this book, I have pointed out that the records in Volume 2 and Volume 3 of the Shandong Gazetteer in the Jiajing period were the li numbers in Hongwu 24th year. It recorded 865 li in Yanzhou Prefecture whereas 862 li was recorded in The Chorography of Great Ming. Given that the difference was minor, no other adjustments were made on the data. 7 In Tianshun, there were 545 li in Dengzhou Prefecture in Hongwu 24th year according to Volume 3 of Jiajing “Shandong Tongzhi,” but 543 li, according to “The Chorography of the Great Ming”. Because the difference was minor, the data was not adjusted.

48

Chapter 3

According to Volume 8 “Hukou” of Jiajing’s Shandong Tongzhi (The General Records of Shandong), Jinan fu had a population of 210,300 in 1526 (Jiajing 5th year) with an annual growth rate of 5.6% beginning from Hongwu 24th year. The population growth rate in Jinan fu was very identical to the population growth in most of northern China. This, in turn, proves that estimates of the population of Jinan Prefecture in Hongwu 24th year are, generally, correct. The person per household ratio in Shandong and in Jinan seemed too high in both Ming Taizu Shilu (Veritable Records of Ming Emperor Taizu) and Shandong Records edited in the Jiajing period. It is estimated that the gender ratio of the registered population in Jinan ought to be at least 150, given that the adjusted actual population of Jinan Prefecture was 1,130,000. 2.7 Summary To sum up, the aggregate population of Shandong’s 6 prefectures was 527,200 in Hongwu 24th year. The number of population in Hongwu 26th year recorded in Volume 8 “hukou” of Shandong Tongzhi edited in the Jiajing period taken from Houhu Zhi was 525,600. The difference of 16000 between the two is negligible. It can almost be neglected. This confirms the previous assumptions: first, the registered population of Ji’nan Prefecture was the difference between the total population in Shandong and that of the other five prefectures; second, Dengzhou population estimates according to the li data of Tianshun, was, to a large extent, accurate. 3

Shanxi

As per the statistics of the population growth rate of Hongwu 14th year, Hongwu 24th year, and Hongwu 26th year in Table 3 below, it can be concluded that the statistics of the population of Hongwu 26th year is comparatively more reasonable. Therefore, Volume 26 of Yongzheng’s “Shanxi tongzhi” (The General Records of Shanxi) adopted this data. According to Volume 26 of Yongzheng’s “Shanxi Tongzhi” Shanxi had a population of 3,912,000 in 1491 (Hongzhi 4th year), 3,526,000 in 1522 (Jiajing 1st year), 4,087,000 in 1542 (Jiajing 21st year), and 4,503,000 in 1578 (Wanli 6th year). From Hongwu 26th year to Hongzhi 4th year, Shanxi had an annual population growth rate of 5.4‰, comparable with that of northern China in the same period. Though there were fluctuations in the population of Shanxi, the annual growth rate remained at a fairly low level. That does not appear to be the norm. The number of li recorded in da ming yi tongzhi (Comprehensive Geography of the Great Ming) reflected a general proportion of the population in various

49

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period Table 3

Prefecture

The registered and actual population of Shanxi Province in Hongwu 24th year

Xi’an

Fengxiang Hanzhong Pingliang Gong Lintao Qing Yan’an Total Chang Yang

No. of li in 1192 211 Tianshun period Percentage(%) 51.2 9.1 Registered 118.5 21.0 population Actual 135.8 24.0 population

53

125

221

46

123. 359

2330

2.3 5.3

5.4 17.0

9.5 22

2.0 4.6

5.3 15.4 8.0 35.7

100 231.7

6.0

19.5

25.2

5.2

9.2 40.9

265.4

Source: Estimated from “Daming Yitongzhi”

places in the early Ming Dynasty, based on which it is possible to calculate the population of various prefectures of Shanxi Province in Hongwu 24th year. For the data in Table 3, the following points need to be noted. First, the Hanzhong fu had only 53,000 registered inhabitants. According to Volume 113 of “Ming Taizu Shilu” (Veritable Records of Taizu, Ming Emperor), in the month of July, Hongwu 10th year, “Cheng bu” (Deputy Magistrate) of Lueyang, Xixiang, Shiquan, Xunyang counties were cut off because the area was too small and the people too few. Also, according to Volume 82 of Ming Yingzong Shilu (Veritable Records of Emperor Yingzong of the Ming), in the month of July, Zhengtong 6th year in Shiquan county, “there were only 56 households in a li.” All these indicated that Hanzhong fu in the Hongwu period was indeed sparsely populated. Up until the Chenghua period, the government settled 80,000 displaced people in Hanzhong area. In addition, Volume 33 of Shanxi tongzhi, edited in the Jiajing period, recorded that the population of Hanzhong fu was up to 190,000 in the early Jiajing period. This number corresponds to the number of displaced people that were resettled. Second, Pingliang and Qingyang fu had similar numbers of li in the Tianshun period meaning their population should be comparable. However, Pingliang had 11 counties while Qingyang had only 5. It is inconceivable that two prefectures shared the same number of li even though they had such a big difference in the number of counties. An assessment of Volume 1–13 of Jiajing’s Pingliang fu Records indicated that the aggregate population of Chengguo, Lingtai, Huating, and Longde 4 counties was 98,000 in the Hongwu period. Based on the number of li in each prefecture, it can be estimated that the population of Pingliang fu was only 125,000 inhabitants. It is hard to imagine that there were

50

Chapter 3

only 27,000 people in other counties of Pingliang. A detailed assessment shows that the population of Qingyang fu was over-estimated, given that the prefecture had only 5 counties. In terms of the number of li, it is inconceivable that Qingliang fu, with only 5 li, would have approximately the same population as Pingliang fu that had 11 counties. So, the adjusted population of Qingyang fu is 80,000, while that of Pingliang fu is about 170,000. Thirdly, the average person per household in Shanxi during Hongwu 26th year was up to 7.8, meaning the gender ratio was estimated at 150. The adjusted actual population of each prefecture is indicated in Table 3. 4

Huguang Province

In the Ming Dynasty, Huguang buzheng shisi (province) included Hunan and Hubei provinces both present-day and in the Qing Dynasty. According to Table 1, Hongwu 24th year, it had 740,000 households and a population of 4,090.000 with an average of 5.5 persons per household. Hence, the population analysis per prefecture is as follows: 4.1 Changde Fu According to Hukou, Volume 6 of Changde fu Records in the Jiajing period, Changde fu had 29,277 households and a population of 128,895 in the Hongwu 24th year. The aggregated population of all counties was the same as the population in the prefecture. That means the average person per household, which was 4.4, was in line with the standard, especially because it certainly includes the female population. The number of registered inhabitants was equal to that of the actual population. According to Volume 44 “Geographer Records” of “Ming Shi” (The History of Ming), Lizhou and its three counties, Anxiang, Shimen, Cili, which were under the jurisdiction of Changde fu, were incorporated into Yuezhou fu. Subsequently, the population of Changde fu rose to 243,000 because of the addition of the four localities. 4.2 Yuezhou Fu According to “Hukou” , Volume 7 of Yuezhou fu Records edited in the Longqing period, Yuezhou fu had a total of 70,867 households and a population of 282,224 population including an average of 4 persons per household in the Hongwu period. The population data of Anxiang county was the same as that of Hongwu 24th year in Volume 13 of “Min Guo” (Republic of China)’s Draft of Anxiang County Records. So, the data in Yuezhou fu appears to be the number of Hongwu 24th year.

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

51

Pingjiang county had 1,547 households, but the population was only 19,265. It appears that “Yuezhou fu Records” edited in the Longqing period might have mistaken “sixty thousand” for “ten thousand.” In his works, Zhang Guoxiong (1995:143) cited “Yuezhou Fu Records” edited in the Hongzhi period claiming that “Pingjiang county recorded 69,265 persons”.8 If so, the population of Yuezhou fu in the Hongwu period ought to be 332,000. Therefore, the average number of persons per household in Yuezhou fu ought to be 4.7. This would make the total number of registered inhabitants equal to the actual population. As mentioned above, Lizhou, together with its counties—Anxiang, Shimen, and Cili—belonged to the Changde fu prior to Hongwu 30th year and were incorporated into Yuezhou fu thereafter. Apparently, the Lizhou population registration was completed before it was incorporated into Yuezhou fu. That explains why Yuezhou fu had only 218,000 inhabitants in Hongwu 24th year. 4.3 Changsha Fu According to the county-specific population data recorded in Volume 3 “Geography Records” of Jiajing Changsha Fu Records, Changsha fu comprised of 86,684 households and a population of 497,279 inhabitants. However, the total population was 599,100, a number that failed to match the aggregated county population. The average person per household ratio was 5.7; therefore, the gender ratio was estimated to be abnormal. Given that discrepancy, the number was not adopted. If the gender ratio of the registered population is assumed to be 130, then the adjusted actual population should be 537000. 4.4 Baoqing Fu According to Volume 3 of Longqing’s “Baoqing Fu Records” (Baoqing Fu Records), Baoqing fu had 20,584 households and a population of 134,918, including an average of 6.6 persons per household. Such a significant number of persons per household makes one doubt the gender ratio. Fortunately, the gender-specific population was 78,100 males and 56,818 females, with a gender ratio of 137. Adjusted according to a gender ratio of 110, the actual population of Baoqing fu ought to be 148,000 in Hongwu 24th year. 4.5 Yongzhou Fu According to “Hukou”, Volume 3 of “Yongzhou Fu Records” (Yongzhou Records) published in Hongwu 26th year, the number of households in Yongzhou in Hongwu 15th year was 73,005, and the population was 411,616 inhabitants, including 5.6 persons per household on average. An analysis of Volume 1 of 8 Zhang, G. (1995). The migrants of Hunan and Hubei Provinces during the Ming and Qing dynasties. Shaanxi: Shaanxi People’s Education Press.(Original volume rank unknown).

52

Chapter 3

Hongzhi “Yongzhou Fu Zhi,” Kangxi “Yongzhou Fu Zhi,” and Daoguang “Yongzhou Fu Zhi” indicates that the data is inaccurate. The three records all show that Yongzhou Prefecture, in Hongwu 24th year, comprised 24,996 households and 113,590 inhabitants with an average of 4.5 persons per household. There was county-specific data, and the aggregated number of all counties was the total population. However, the number was 4 times that recorded in “Hongwu Zhi” (Hongwu Records). According to the article entitled “Guilin fu of Guangxi” in “Geography Records”, Volume 45 of “The History of Ming Dynasty”, Quanzhou and Guanyang county, a county under its jurisdiction, were both under the control of Yongzhou fu, Huguang Province before August of Hongwu 27th year. They were incorporated into Guilin, Guangxi after the revolt9 of the Yao ethnic people was suppressed. When Hongwu compiled Yongzhou Fu Zhi in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year), the administrative changes had not yet been completed. With the exception of Quanzhou and Guanyang county, Yongan and other six counties of Yongzhou fu, in 1382 (Hongwu 15th year), had a total of 44,698 households, a population of 243,791 with an average of 5.5 persons per household. However, by Hongwu 24th year, that is nine years after, the population had decreased by 53%. During the Hongwu period, the Yao ethnic people uprising in the southern Hunan area began an uprising that brought about unrest in the area even though there were no large-scale casualties. So, it is not appropriate to associate the decrease in population with the uprising of the minority people. Counties, specifically, Jianghua county, witnessed up to 88% decrease in population followed by Yongming (Jiangyong county today), 78%; Ningyuan county, 64%; Daozhou county, 46%; and Dong’an county, 8%. Judging from the location of the five counties, it can be concluded that the the farther south the counties lay, the more out of the way they were and the more their population decreased. Further north to Lingling county, the administrative headquarters of Yongzhou fu, the population remained the same, and there was even an increase in the population of Qiyang county that lay further north. The population reduction in Yongzhou Prefecture has been significantly persistent, shrinking from south to north. This is also consistent with the proportion of Yao ethnic people. For example, in the 1990s, in the southernmost autonomous county of Jianghua Yao, the Yao population accounted for half of the county’s population. In Jiangyong county (Yongming county) in the north, the Yao and Miao population accounted for 11%, and further north, Shuangpai 9 Volume 243 of “The Veritable Records of Taizu, Ming Emperor,” Article Jiashen in November, the Hongwu 28th year.

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

53

(part of Daozhou in the Ming Dynasty) and Xintian (part of Ningyuan county in the early Ming Dynasty) there were only 5000–6000 Yao people.10 Over the past 600 years that followed the Hongwu period, there has been a continuous sinification of the minority population. In the early years of the Ming Dynasty, the population proportion of the Yao nationality in Jianghua county was much higher than it is today, and the same could be said about other counties. From Hongwu 15th year to 24th year, the population of Jianghua county reduced by 88%, and the reduction seemed to be mostly the Yao population. Therefore, the sharp decrease in the Yongzhou fu population in Hongwu 24th year could only be understood from the perspective of statistical caliber change. That means the Yao population and other minority people registered in Hongwu 15th year were excluded in Hongwu 24th year. The key to this change is that the focus of the census in Hongwu 24th year had changed to “no loss of original amount.” As Yao people were not liable for corvee service, they were not relevant in the census. Note: As indicated on Table 1, the 183,000 inhabitants of Quanzhou and its Guanyang county incorporated to Guilin, Guangxi Province, since Hongwu 26th year is recorded in Yongzhou fu in Hongwu 26th year. 4.6 Hengzhou Fu During the Hongwu period, Hengzhou fu had jurisdiction over ten prefectures and counties. According to several chorographies including Volume 8 of “Hengshan County Zhi” edited in the Guangxu period, Volume 5 of “Anren County Zhi” edited in the Tongzhi period, Volume 6 of “Changning County Zhi” edited in the Tongzhi period, and Volume 2 of “Leiyang County Zhi” edited in the Daoguang period, the four counties had a population data of Hongwu 24th year. There were over 32,000 people in Hengshan, Anren, and Leiyang counties, respectively. Only Changning County comprised of 1,356 households and had a population of 7,699 persons. In the Yuan Dynasty, there were 18,000 households in Changning County and a population of 69,000 inhabitants. However, there was only one-tenth of that number in Hongwu 24th year. Moreover, according to Da Ming Yitong Zhi (Comprehensive Georgraphy of the Great Ming), there were only 7 li in Chang Ning county, while the other two counties had 21 li and 28 li, respectively. Therefore, the population in Changning county did not appear to be correct. Volume 5 of Anren County Records indicated that the population of Changning county in the early Ming Dynasty decreased after the mountainous bandit rebellion during the Hongwu period and the suppression of the government in Hongwu 29th year. According to “Guan Zhi” (Official 10

Hunan Provincial Atlas (1993). Changsha: Hunan Map Publishing House.

54

Chapter 3

System), Volume 1 of Yongzhou Fu Zhi, edited in the Hongzhi period, several suo were set up in 1396 (Hongwu 29th year), including Pipa thousand hu suo, Jianghua thousand hu suo, and Jintian thousand hu suo. Anren county had a population of 100,000 while Changning had 285,000, 2.9 times the population of Anren county during the Jiaqing period of Qing Dynasty. Until the 1953 census, Anren had a population of 172,000, while Changning county had 421,000, 2.4 times the population of Anren.11 It is presumed that by Hongwu 24th year, Changning county should have had a population of 33,000, that is, the average population of the other three counties. Given that the aggregated population of the ten counties in Hengzhou fu was 330,000, it seems logical to conclude that the minority population was included in the count. With regard to the number of li, Hengzhou fu in the Tianshun period had a total of 262.5 li while Hengshan and the other three counties had 84 li, accounting for 32% of the total number of li. In the above-mentioned source, the four counties had a total population of 106,000. Based on this proportion, the population of Hengzhou fu ought to have been 330,000 in Hongwu 24th year. According to Volume 12 of Huguang Provincial Map and Records edited in the Jiajing period, in Hongwu 24th year, the population of the four counties, which accounted for 36% of the total population in Hengzhou fu, was 300,000. Compared with the northern Hunan provinces, the person per household ratio in the counties of Hengyang fu tended to be relatively large, reflecting the fact that the quality of the population survey was lower than that in the northern region. The populations of Hengyang Prefecture were estimated from indirect sources whose accuracy was doubtful. Therefore, the projected population was tentatively considered to be both the registered population and the actual population. 4.7 Chenzhou Fu The counties of Chenzhou fu were located to the north of the Nanling Mountain, while the only place in the Yuan Dynasty that bore similarities with Chenzhou fu was Daozhou lu. Daozhou in Hongwu 9th year was under the jurisdiction of Yongzhou fu. In the Yuan Dynasty, Chenzhou lu comprised 61,259 households while Daozhou lu comprised 78,018 households, while Yongzhou Lu comprised 55666 households. The number of households in Daozhou accounted for 58.4% of the total number of households in Daozhou 11

The population data of 1953 is from the Department of Demography, National Bureau of Statistics (Eds.) (1988). China’s Population yearbook. Beijing: China Zhanwang Publishing house. (No other detail provided).

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

55

and Yongzhou. For its part, the number of households in Chenzhou accounted for 78.5% of the number in Daozhou. Based on this ratio, it is evident that the population of Chenzhou was 46% that of Yongzhou. We compared the population of Chenzhou Prefecture and that of Yongzhou Prefecture before the Yao people uprising and found that if Yongzhou Prefecture had a population of over 240,000, then Chenzhou should have had a population of about 110,000. Chenzhou area was also affected by the uprising of the Yao people. The Veritable Records of Ming Emperor Taizu, recorded that in Hongwu 29th year, “Hu Mian took military troops to Chenzhou and Guizhou to suppress the rebellions.” Local Records recorded that, “In the Hongwu period, there were plundering every now and then, so three bai hu from Chenzhou suo were sent to guard Hankou, Yanzhu and Xinkeng Forts.” Unlike Yongzhou, Chenzhou established only three new forts after the suppression of the Yao people uprising. Its previous military force was also weak, with only one suo of qianhu (thousand hu).12 There were not many people engaged in the uprising, which meant that the Yao ethnic minority did not have a large population. This is why a comparison is made between the population of Chenzhou and that of Yongzhou. 4.8 Chenzhou and Jingzhou The number of li in Chenzhou and Jingzhou in the Tianshun period was 168 and 87 miles, respectively. This was basically the same number as in the record in Huguang Provincial Maps and Records. The consistent number of li throughout Tianshun and Jiajing period suggests that this may equally be the number of li in the Hongwu period. For example, Chenzhou fu, which was part of Hengzhou fu, had an average of 220 households per li in Hongwu 24th year with a population of about 180,000, while Jingzhou had a population of about 100,000. In short, in the southern region of Huguang province, the population was about 2.08 million. 4.9 Huangzhou Fu, Xiangyang Fu, and Mianyang Prefecture According to the “Official System and Population,” Volume 3 of Huangzhou Fu Records in the Hongzhi period, in Hongwu 24th year, Huangzhou Fu had 94,952 households with a population of 642,160 inhabitants. The county-level data generally corresponded to the prefecture-level data. Given that the person per household ratio was as high as 6.8, there is a possibility the female population is under registered. The gender ratio of the registered civilian population was estimated to be 150, and the adjusted actual population was about 740,000. 12 Volume 7 Military Records of Guidong County Gazetteer of Republic of China.

56

Chapter 3

The statistics in Hukou, Volume 1 of Xiangyang County Records edited in the Tianshun period maintain that in Hongwu 24th year, the whole prefecture had 15,199 households, a population of 85,909 inhabitants, including 5.7 persons per household. This data appears close to the standard given that the actual population was identical to registered population. According to Mianyang County Records edited in the Jiajing period, in Hongwu 24th year, Mianyang County had 7,572 households, a population of 47,410 inhabitants, while Jingling County had 4,702 households and a population of 23,619 inhabitants. The prefecture had a total of 12,274 households, 71029 inhabitants, including 5.8 persons per household. There was 34,612 males and 36,317 females Mianyang Prefecture, with a gender ratio of only 95. It should be noted that in the Hongwu period, there were few areas with a gender ratio below 100. 4.10 De’an Fu According to Volume 2 of Zhengde’s De’an Fu Records, in Hongwu 24th year, De’an Prefecture had 8,087 households and a population of 59,701, including an average of 7.4 persons per household. County-specific population data indicated that apart from Anlu County, which had a close-to-normal number of person per household, the other 5 counties seemed to have extra-large family sizes. In addition, Yunmeng and Xiaogan, in the south, had 8.3–8.4 persons per household, while in Suizhou and Yingshan, in the north, had 6.7 persons per household. Anlu County was a “fuguo county” that had its capital at the same geographical location as that of the prefecture, so the implementation of the ordinance ought to be more stringent than in other counties. It is, therefore, possible that the gender ratio of the registered population of De’an fu could be up to 160. With an adjusted gender ratio of 110, the actual population was about 70, 000. 4.11 Wuchang Fu Wuchang Prefecture had a total of 10 counties. According to Hongwu 24th year, 7 counties, including Tongshan, Tongcheng, Xianning, Daye, Puxi, Xingguo, Jiayu, had a total of 27,278 households and a population of 173,12113 including 13 According to Volume 4 of Kangxi’s Tongshan County Gazetteer, Volume 5 of Shunzhi’s Tongcheng County gazetteer, Volume 4 of Tongzhi’s Xianning County Gazetteer, Volume 2 of Tongzhi’s Daye County Gazetteer, Volume 2 of Tongzhi’s Puxi County Gazetteer, Volume 3 of Jiajing’s Xingguo Prefecture Gazetteer, and Volume 1 of Zhengtong’s Jiayu County Gazetteer.

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

57

6.3 persons per household and 25,000, on average, in each county. Following this scale, it is logical to estimate that Wuchang, including all the ten counties, had at least 250,000 inhabitants. However, the most populous two counties, Wuchang and Jiangxia, were not included in the count, meaning this number me have been underestimated. Volume 1 of “Huguang Provincial Maps and Records,” edited in the Jiajing period, had a record of the county-level population data of Wuchang Prefecture with Jiangxia county, Wuchuang county, and Chongyang county accounting for 36.4% of the total population. The other 7 counties, including Tongshan made up the remaining 63.6%. If that proportion was true in Hongwu 24th year, then Wuchang Prefecture had an estimated 262,000 populations. The estimate could also be done based on the number of li. In the Tianshun period, the number of li in Jiangxia, Wuchang, and Chongyang accounted for 42.7% of the total number. If this number is viewed as representing the proportion of the population in the Hongwu period, then the total population of Wuchang Prefecture in Hongwu 24th year ought to be about 302,000. Estimates could also be done based on the number of persons per li. Given the population data for the 7 counties, including Tong Shan in the Hongwu 24th year, if the numbers of li in the Tianshun period were the same as the number in the Hongwu period, then there were 184 households per li with an average of 6.2 persons per household. Wuchang Prefecture, it is claimed, had a total of 265 li in the Tianshun period. According to Volume 1 of Jiajing “Huguang Provincial Maps and Records”, Wuchang Prefecture continued to have 254 li in the early Jiajing period, which means there was no change in Wuchang Prefecture in the Ming Dynasty. Assuming that there were 265 li in Wuchang Prefecture in Hongwu 24th year with an average of 184 households per li and an average of 6.2 persons per household, the total population of the entire prefecture would have been 322,000. Based on the three above methods, the registered population of Wuchang fu in Hongwu 24th year can be estimated to be roughly 250,000–330,000 inhabitants. Here, we set it at 300,000, which should reflect the exact population. The average number of persons per households in the six counties of Wuchang fu was up to 6.2. In addition, the estimated gender ratio of the registered population could be up to 130, so the adjusted actual population ought to be about 320,000. 4.12 Hanyang Fu No record of the population of the Hanyang fu during the reign of Hongwu has been found. Hanyang fu had jurisdiction over Hanyang county and Hanchuan

58

Chapter 3

county, so based on the average population of surrounding counties of 25,000, Hanyang Prefecture may have had a total population of 50,000. 4.13 Jingzhou Fu In Hongwu 24th year, Jingzhou fu had jurisdiction over 15 counties, but only one account exists of its population. According to “hukou,” Volume 13 of Jingmen Fu Records edited in the Qianong period, the population of Jingzhou fu was 61,686 in Hongwu 24th year. The population of the rest of the years is unknown. According to Volume 1 of Huguang Provincial Maps and Records edited in the Jiajing period, Jingmen Zhou (Prefecture) in 1472 (Chenghua 8th year) had 56,735 persons, accounting 16.9% of the total population. Da Ming Yitong Zhi recorded 63 li in Jingmen zhou, accounting for 17.4% of the total. Assuming that its population proportion in Hongwu 24th year was 17%, Jingzhou Prefecture should have had a population of about 354,000. 4.14 An’lu Fu In the Hongwu period, An’lu Prefecture had jurisdiction over itself and Jingshan county. In the Tianshun period, there were a total of 42 li, which accounted for 11.6% of the li in Jingzhou Prefecture. Based on this data, in Hongwu 24th year, An’lu zhou presumably had about 40,000 people. Alter­ natively, assuming the number of li in the two places was 66.7% of the li in Jingmen Prefecture, there would have been 41,000 in An’lu Prefecture. All in all, in Hongwu 24th year, the registered population in the north of Huguang province was about 1,772,000. 4.15 Summary With the exception of Quanzhou and Guanyang county that were under its jurisdiction, the total population of Huguang Province in Hongwu 24th year was 3,792,000, a total of 298,000 inhabitants fewer than the 4,090,000 recorded in Table 1. From Hongwu 15th year to Hongwu 24th year, the change in the population statistics of Yongzhou Prefecture led to a reduction of about 130,000 inhabitants. “Shizhouwei”, as well as some of the Guizhou district governors and xuanwei si Division, had been included in the jurisdiction of the Huguang Province. Therefore, their population was added to the total population of Huguang Province. Also included in their population were Yongshun military and civilian “xuanwei si” Division in the western Hunan, Baojing military and civilian “xuanwei si” Division, and ethnic minority populations in the western mountainous area Yuezhou Prefecture. The difference between the sum of the county population data and the total population Huguang Province is the ethnic minority population in these areas.

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

5

59

Fujian

According to Table 1, the population of Fujian in 1381 (Hongwu 14th year) was 3.84 million, but only 3.30 million in 1391. Even though that number became 3.92 million in 1393, the number of households remained about the same, around 810 000 to 820,000. A breakdown of the status of individual prefectures is as follows: 5.1 Tingzhou Fu and Shaowu Fu According to “Food and Currency,” Vol. 4 of Tingzhou Records edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), Tingzhou prefecture had 60,033 households, 290,977 people accounting for 4.8 people per household. These numbers, however, do not match the totality of the population numbers of all the counties. A closer look reveals that this is because the population number of Ninghua county was, as a matter of fact, from 1522 (Jiajing 1st year). That means the correct number for Ninghua county ought to have been 4.8 people per household, rather than 3.6. According to Household, Vol. 7 of Shaowu Records edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), the four counties in Shaowu prefecture had 56,682 households, 235,710 inhabitants, and, therefore, a houseperson ratio at 4.2. 5.2 Fuzhou Fu According to Household, Vol. 3 of Funing Zhouzhi edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), Funing had 43,094 households and 112,580 inhabitants, meaning there were 2.6 inhabitants per household. The relatively low number of people per household in Funing may have been due to inconsistencies in the measuring criteria. If we assume a house-person ratio at 4.5, the population of Funing would then be about 194,000 inhabitants. The noteworthy point is that in 1391, the number of households and the total population of Funing were not separately recorded, given that the county was considered part of Fuzhou prefecture. According to Vol. 7 of Fuzhou Records edited in the Wanli period (1522–1566). Fuzhou prefecture, in Hongwu period (1368–1398), had 94,514 households, 285,265 inhabitants, and therefore, only three inhabitants per household. In the case of Funing, if we assume the house-person ratio to be 4.5, then the population of Fuzhou would be around 425,000. With an average annual growth rate of 4‰, the total population of Fuzhou prefecture in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) ought to have been about 440,000.

60

Chapter 3

5.3 Jianning Fu and Xinghua Fu According to Vol. 12 of Jianning Records edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), in Hongwu 14th year, Jianning prefecture had 140,089 households and 537,024 inhabitants, meaning the number of inhabitants per household was 3.8. The number of inhabitants per household in only two counties, Ouning and Songxi, falls within the reasonable range. In comparison, the number of inhabitants per household in the remaining five counties (around 3.5 only) falls out of the reasonable range. If we assume a house-person ratio at 4.5, then the population of these five counties would be about 503,000, taking the total of the seven counties to around 667,000. That would mean the entire population of 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) would then be around 690,000. As recorded in “Household,” Vol. 10 of Xinghua Records edited in the Hongzhi period (1488–1505), in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), there were 64,241 households in the three counties of Putian, Xianyou, and Xinghua. It is noteworthy that the prefectural borderlines of Xinghua were the same as in the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368), during which 67,739 households and 353,000 inhabitants were documented to have populated the region. So, taking those figures into account, it is possible to assume that the house-person ratio would have been five and that the total number of inhabitants of Xinghua in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) would have been about 32 million. 5.4 Yanping Fu According to Food and Currency, Vol. 5 of Yanping Records edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), during the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368), Yanping prefecture had 89,825 households and 435,869 inhabitants. No statistics are found with regard to the population status in the Hongwu period (1368–1398). The only available record shows that in Zhengtong 7th year (1442), there were 77,627 households and 280,508 inhabitants living in the area. However, the Yanping prefectural population can be estimated based on the county data. According to Vol. 3 of Youxi Records edited in the Chongzhen period (1628–1644), in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), Youxi had 22,182 households and 70,317 inhabitants accounting for only 3.2 inhabitants per household. If we assume that a standard house-person ratio was five, then the county would have had about 110,910 inhabitants. According to Fangdu, Vol. 2 of Shaxian Records edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), there were 36,439 households and 187,468 inhabitants in the county, meaning there were 5.1 inhabitants per household. In addition, as recorded in “Food and Currency and Household,” Vol. 2 of Jiangle Records edited in the Hongzhi period (1488–1505), the county had 18,742 households and 68,444 inhabitants, accounting for 3.7 inhabitants per household. If we assume a house-person ratio of five, then the total

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

61

population of the entire county would be around 93,710 inhabitants. That means the total population of the three counties would be 392,088 inhabitants, including 77,363 households. In 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), apart from the aforementioned three counties, there were also Nanping and Shunchang. During the 1953 census registration, it was noted that these two counties accounted for 41% of the population of Yanping prefecture. However, because Yong’an and Datian were administratively separated from Youxi and Shaxian counties in the mid-Ming, Nanping and Shuangchang then accounted for only 30% of the population of the whole seven counties. If we assume that in the Hongwu period (1368–1398), these two counties also accounted for 30% of the whole prefectural population, leaving Youxi, Shaxi, and Jiangle with 70% of the prefectural population, then the total prefectural population would be around 560,000. The population statistics of each prefecture in Fujian, which can be found in Vol. 15–16 of BaMin Tongzhi (The General Records of Eight Min), show that the three counties under Yanping, i.e. Youxi, Shaxian, and Jiangle, had 356 tu.14 That number accounted for 68.9% of the whole prefectural population at the time, which is quite close to our above estimation of these three counties accounting for 70% of the prefectural population. 5.5 Quanzhou Fu The data of Quanzhou is more complicated than that of the other prefectures. According to BaMin Tongzhi, during the Hongzhi period (1488–1505), there were only 135 tu in Jingjiang, the metropolitan county of Quanzhou and 20 of these lived in or near the inner city of the prefectural capital. If each tu contained 180 households, Quanzhou would have had only 3,600 households and about 18,000 inhabitants. Because of the sea trade restrictions (the haijin or sea ban) in early Ming, many tradesmen including a large number of Arabs, left Quanzhou. Therefore, the county quickly lost its status as a trading port, and its population declined to the level of a regular prefectural capital. Considering all the above conditions, we speculate that the number 262 recorded in Min Daji was, actually, the number of tu of Jingjiang during the Hongwu period (1368–1398). In Ba Min Tongzhi, the tu number of the four counties of Nanan, Dehua, Yongchun, and Anxi were all the results of following the record of “25 tu for the several counties”. No separate number has been found just for the three 14

According to Daming Yitongzhi (Comrprehensive Georgraphy of the Ming Dynasty) edited in the Tianshun period (1457–1464), these three counties had 339 li making it possible to speculate that the statistics in Ba Min Tongzhi were from before the Tianshun period and probably were or close to the concept of li in the Hongwu period (1368–1398).

62

Chapter 3

counties of Jinjiang, Tongan, and Hui’an. However, we can speculate, based on the above discussion about the case of Jingjiang, that the tu numbers of these three counties would be reflective of the population decline in the early Ming period. Nevertheless, unlike Quanzhou, whose conditions were special due to its status, the decline in population declines would have been different and would have varied from county to county, thereby making it difficult to estimate the prefectural population based on county data. According to Vol. 1 of Anxi Records edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), Anxi had 1,980 households and 9,016 inhabitants, thereby accounting for a house-person ratio 4.6. According to “Farm Tax,” Vol. 6 of Yongchun Zhouzhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), Yongchun had 4,041 households and 21,077 inhabitants with an average of 5.2 inhabitants per household, while Dehua county had 2,227 households and 17,900 inhabitants with an average 8 inhabitants per household. Altogether the three counties had 8,248 households, 47,993 inhabitants and a house-person ratio of 5.8. It is recorded in Ba Min Tongzhi that during the Hongzhi period (1488–1505), these three counties had 39 tu accounting for 12.9% of the total 302 tu in the entire prefecture. Because of the previously mentioned population change in Jingjiang, the pace of the county’s tu numbers decline ought to be faster than that of the other counties. Consequently, it can be assumed that the tu numbers of Anxi, Yongchun, and Dehua accounted for less than 12.9% of the total of Quanzhou prefecture. If we assume that the percentage was 9, then in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), the prefecture would have had some 90,000 households and 530,000 inhabitants. 5.6 Zhangzhou Fu In the Hongwu period (1368–1398), three of the five counties of Zhangzhou prefecture have specific population records: In “Tax and Corvee”, Vol. 3 of Longyan Zhouzhi edited in the Daoguang period (1782–1850), it is recorded that in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), Longyan had 13,331 households and 81,844 inhabitants accounting for 6.1 inhabitants per household. According to “Tax and Corvee,” Vol. 7 of Zhangpu Records edited in the Kangxi period (1662–1722), the corresponding numbers for Zhangpu county are 15,356, 98,999, and 6.4 respectively, and, according to “Household, Food and Currency,” Changtai Records edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), the numbers for Changtai county were 5,622 and 18,399 (noted under the category of ding). Based on these numbers, it is worthy to note that Changtai county would have had 3.3 ding per household. If we take this ding as a reference of the male population, the household-person ratio would be 6.3 based on a presumed sex ratio of 110. Therefore, the entire population of Changtai county ought to be 35,419, and the three counties altogether

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

63

ought to have 34,309 households and 216,262 inhabitants. Records in Ba Min Tongzhi show that these three counties had 217 tu in the Hongwu period (1368–1398), accounting for 49.1% of the total tu number in the prefecture.15 At this ratio, the entire Zhangzhou prefecture should have had 69,734 households and 439,557 inhabitants. 5.7 Summary In summary, in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), Fujian prefecture had about 3.701 million inhabitants, a number slightly fewer than the number in both Hongwu 14th year (1381) and the 26th year (1393) but which shows an increase of 400,000 inhabitants in the 24th year (see Table 1). 6

Zhejiang

According to Gongfu Records, Vol. 17 of Zhejiang Tongzhi (The General Records of Zhejiang) edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), there were 2,138,225 households and 10,487,567 inhabitants in Zhejiang. That means the household-person ratio was 5. These are also the numbers for Hongwu 26th year (1393) (see Table 1). Unfortunately, “Zhejiang Tongzhi” contains no specific account of the population of individual prefectures during the Hongwu period (1368–1398). The sources of the current data are the following: Household, Vol. 7 of Hangzhou Records edited in the Kangxi period (1662–1722), Food and Currency, Vol. 9 of Yanzhou Records edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), Household, Farm Tax, Vol. 14 of Shaoxing Records edited in the Kangxi period (1662–1722), Household, Vol. 10 of Jiaxing Records edited in the Kangxi period (1662–1722), Economy and Administration, and Household, Vol. 39 of Huzhou Records edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), Household, Vol. 1 of Taizhou Records edited in the Kangxi period (1662–1722), Food and Currency, and Household, Vol. 5 of Wenzhou Records edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620), and Household, Vol. 4 of Ningbo Junzhi in the Chenghua period (1465–1487). However, given that the household-person ratios calculated on the basis of these data all seem abnormally low, we again use the baseline household-person ratio of five to estimate the population of each

15

According to Daming Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Georgraphys of the Ming Dynasty) edited in the Tianshun period (1457–1464), these three counties had 221 li, a number also smaller than the number in BaMin Tongzhi. So we can speculate that the number in BaMin Tongzhi were from earlier than the Tianshun period.

64

Chapter 3

prefecture except Jinhua and Chuzhou since these two prefectures require special analysis. According to the report of Zuo Buzhengshi (Left Exchequer) Huang Ze, which was recorded in the entry of November Zhengtong 6th year (1441) in Vol. 85 of Ming Yingzong Shilu (Veritable Records of Emperor Yingzong of the Ming), in Jinhua prefecture: “During the Hongwu period (1368–1398), there were some 256,000 households in the seven counties of Jinhua.” If we assume a household-person ratio to be five, then the number of inhabitants in Jinhua would be around 128,000. According to Vol. 11 of Pujiang Records edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), Vol. 2 of Lanxi Records edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), Vol. 1 of Yiwu Records edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) and Vol. 1 of Wuyi Records edited in the Zhengde period (1506–1521), the four counties of Pujiang, Lanxi, Yiwu, and Dezheng had altogether 108,469 households and 546,294 inhabitants meaning the average inhabitants per household was five. These four counties accounted for 42.3% of the total number of households, which suggests that the total prefectural population was around 128,9000. It can be seen that the results of the two methods of calculation are significantly close. Among the eight counties of Chuzhou prefecture, only the number of households and inhabitants of Longquan in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) are recorded. In Household, Vol. 4 of Longquan Records edited in the Shunzhi period (1643–1661), in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), the county had 26,560 households and 126,443 inhabitants, which means there were 4.8 inhabitants per household. According to Daming Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Geography of the Ming Dynasty) edited in the Tianshun period (1457–1464), Longquan had 166 li accounting for up to 17.3 % of the Chuzhou population. If this ratio was close to the one in 1391, then Chuzhou should have had a population of 731,000 inhabitants. By extension, that means the 11 prefectures of Zhejiang would have had 10.966 million inhabitants in 1391. See Appendix 1 for the numbers of each prefecture. 7

Guangdong

Guangdong population statistics were recorded in Vol. 17–59 of Guangdong Tongzhi (The General Records of Guangdong) edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620). However, we have discovered that the house-person ratios based

65

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

on these documented numbers fell short of the baseline leading us to speculate that the actual population was bigger and to make the following adjustment (see Table 4): Table 4

Prefectural household and population in Guangzhou in Hongwu 24th year

Prefecture Household Person

Household- Adjustment (1) Adjustment (2) (actual populaperson (registered tion, thousand) population)

Guangzhou 210,995 Shaozhou 18,900 Nanxiong 8,909 Huizhou 23,180 Chaozhou 80,979 Zhaoqing 89,111 Gaozhou 21,951 Lianzhou 11,819 Leizhou 45,327 Qiongzhou 68,522 Total 579,693

2.9 4.2 7.6 4.7 3.7 4.7 3.1 6.4 5.0 4.2 3.9

60,8451 80,026 67,731 108,692 296,784 415,793 67,581 75,335 225,612 291,030 2,237,035

90,7279 80,026 67,731 108,692 348,210 415,793 94,389 75,335 225,612 291,030 2,614,097

1,168 103 87 140 448 535 122 97 291 375 3,366

Source: Vol. 17–59 of Guangdong Tongzhi edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620)

Compared with the numbers of 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) (see Table 1), the number of households and inhabitants as outlined in Table 4 are less by 27,548 and 344,684, respectively, an indication that the prefectural records were unreliable. For instance, Guangzhou prefecture, which had the largest numbers of households and population, had a questionable household-person ratio of 2.9. If we assume the ratio to be 4.3, then the population of Guangzhou should be larger than the current number by nearly 300,000 inhabitants. We can infer from the respective numbers of the male and the female population following the result of the census conducted in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) that the prefectural records only accounted for the taxed population. This would then explain why the recorded household-person ratios of Guangzhou, Chaozhou, and Gaozhou prefectures were abnormally low. After adjusting the household-person ratios of these prefectures, we estimate that the population

66

Chapter 3

of Guangdong in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) was 261.4 million; therefore, 32,000 inhabitants more than the recorded number in Ming Taizu Shilu (Veritable Records of Emperor Taizu of the Ming). The population figure of Guangzhou, after adjustment, appears reliable because it is very close to the population figure of Guangdong minus that of all the other Guangdong prefectures. Also, we can confirm that the household-person ratio of 2.9, as recorded in Guangdong Tongzhi edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620), was only the ratio of male residents in an average household. Based on this, there is a female ratio per household is 1.4, and there is an unusually high male-female ratio of 207 if we assume that each Guangdong household had around 4.3 individuals. However, if we assume that the male-female ratio was the normal 110, then we can estimate that, in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), the actual population of Guangzhou was 1.168 million, whereas the actual population of Guangdong ought to be 3.366 million. This assumption explains the adjustments made in Table 4. It needs to be pointed out that the numbers are our estimations. Therefore, we present them as approximations. 8

Guangxi

We found that the statistics of Guangxi households and population in Wealth and Tax, Vol. 17 of Guangxi Tongzhi (The General Records of Guangxi) edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620) were the same as in Houhu Zhi. However, the year numbers were noted differently: Hongwu 1st year (1368) for the former and 26th year (1393) for the latter. In addition, the numbers in the Guangxi Tongzhi are incomplete even though it contains records of individual prefectures. Detailed analysis is as follows: 8.1 Liuzhou Fu, Qingyuan Fu, Wuzhou Fu, and Taiping Fu The Guangxi Tongzhi records show that Liuzhou prefecture had 35,963 households and 231,926 inhabitants in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), meaning the household-person ratio was 6.4. We can estimate that the male-female ratio at the time was around 140 and that the entire population was around 259,000. Records also show that Qingyuan prefecture had 17,272 households and 82,417 inhabitants, accounting for a household-person ratio of 4.8 in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). This ratio, which meets our baseline, suggests that the registered number was the actual population number.

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

67

According to the Guangxi Tongzhi, Wuzhou prefecture in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) had 43,409 households. However, the Tongzhi contains no specific number for the entire prefectural population. The household number is the same as documented in Household and Tax, Vol. 8 of Wuzhou Fuzhi (Wuzhou Fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), and it is the same as in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). In addition, it is noted in the Fuzhi that Wuzhou had 248,538 inhabitants in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). This number seems to have been somehow left out in the Guangxi Tongzhi. Therefore, after adjustment, the household-person ratio of Wuzhou ought to be 5.7, the actual population around 2.68 million. The Tongzhi also had no specific population record for Taiping prefecture during the Hongwu period (1368–1398), noting that the prefecture was “guochu shikao” (missing from the early times). However, according to Household, Vol. 1 of Taiping Fuzhi edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620), there were 4,859 households and some 49,000 (?) inhabitants in Taiping. Given that the numbers were significant small, we did not see any need to make any adjustments. 8.2 Guilin Fu Household, Vol. 3 of Yongzhou Fuzhi (Yongzhou Records) contains the population data of Quanzhou along with that of Guanyang county, which, in Hongwu 14th year (1381), was under the former’s jurisdiction. In fact, the numbers of children and adults, and males and females were specified: The “adult males” and the “adult females” were recorded as 59,244 and 51,424 respectively, while the “male children” and “female children” population numbers were 36,870 and 20,287 respectively. The male-female ratios of the above pairs were 115 and 182. If the ratio is adjusted to 110, the whole population of Quanzhou and Guanyang would be around 183,000. Records show that during the Tianshun period (1457–1464), the combined total number of li for Quanzhou, Guanyang, and Yangshuo was 110, accounting for 32.5% of the total 344 li of the entire Guilin prefecture. Based on the information, it can be estimated that the whole prefectural population was around 703,000. After subtracting the population of Quanzhou and Guanyang, two counties that belonged to Yongzhou prefecture in Hongwu 26th year (1393), we can estimate that the prefectural population was around 520,000. 8.3 Nanning Fu Guangxi Tongzhi, edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620), contains no account of the population of Nanning during the Hongwu period (1368–1398).

68

Chapter 3

According to Household, Vol. 2 of Nanning Fuzhi edited in the Jiajing period (1522–1566), Hengzhou had 1,270 households and 10,094 inhabitants in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). Considering that during the Tianshun period (1457–1464), Hengzhou had 15 li, which comprised 19.2% of the 78 li of the entire Nanning, it can be estimated that the prefecture had about 53,000 inhabitants in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). 8.4 Xunzhou Fu, Pingle Fu, and Siming Fu During the Tianshun period (1457–1464), Xunzhou, Pingle, and Siming took up 8.3% (96 li), 1.3% (15 li), and 0.5% (6 li) of the entire population of Guangxi province. However, because the total provincial population remains unknown, there is insufficient information to make an estimate of the population of these three individual prefectures. However, through an expedient reference to the statistics of the nearby and smaller Nanning prefecture, we estimate that the three prefectures (Xunzhou, Pingle, and Siming) had about 65,000, 10,000, and 24,000 inhabitants, respectively. Taking these numbers into account, we estimate that Guangxi, including Quanzhou and Guanyang county, had about 1.493 million inhabitants in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), a figure significantly close to the 1.483 million inhabitants recorded in Guangxi Tongzhi edited in the Wanli period (1573–1620). However, the latter number was for early Hongwu. It has to be pointed out that the estimation also does not include the population of unregistered ethnic minorities living across the Guangxi prefectures, especially in parts of the west. The size of such a population was considerable. 8.5 Other Regions In Hongwu 26th year (1393), seven regions in western Guangxi, i.e., Sien prefecture, Sichengzhou, Tianzhou prefecture, Zhenan prefecture, Silingzhou, and Longzhou and Jiangzhou, were populated almost entirely by ethnic minority groups. The li-jia system in Daming Yitongzhi (Topographic Treaties of the Ming Dynasty), edited in the Tianshun period (1457–1464), however, did not include these regions. In fact, we have found no historical records of the population in these regions. The 1953 census shows that these regions had 214.3 million inhabitants accounting for 14.4% of the population of Guangxi province. This leads us to estimate that the population in Hongwu 26th year (1393) would have been around 278,000. After dividing this number according to the proportions of each region and using seven as the denominator, we have ended up with population estimates for each region (See Appendix 1). In particular, we

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

69

note that the total area of three regions, Longzhou, Jiangzhou, and Silingzhou, could amount to the area of a county (probably a smaller one) or a zhangguansi. Therefore, the population of these three regions can be estimated to be around 3,000, 4,000 and 3,000 inhabitants respectively. It is worth noticing that, according to Ming Taizu Shilu (Veritable Records of Emperor Taizu of the Ming), each zhangguansi in the 21 zhou, including Guzhou, had around 3,800 inhabitants. We do not believe that this is a coincidence, rather, this means that our estimations are close to the real numbers. In addition, we know that, from Hongwu 26th year (1393) to 1953, the population of these regions increased from 278,000 to 2114,000 representing an average annual growth rate of 3.7%—a rate also reflected in our estimations. 9

Sichuan

So far, we have not found any official account of the prefectural population in Sichuan. So, we have decided to make a rough estimation of the prefectural population in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) by referring to the li ratio of each prefecture as recorded in Daming Yitongzhi (Topographic Treaties of the Ming Dynasty). According to Vol. 1 of Pengzhou Zhouzhi, three counties under Shunqing prefecture, namely Pengzhou, Yingshan, Yilong, had altogether 1,708 households and 18,142 inhabitants, meaning there were 10.6 inhabitants per household. It is also known that these three counties had 15 li in the early years of the Tianshun period (1457–1464). Consequently, if we assume that this number did not change during the Hongwu period (1368–1398), that would make 114 households per li and 151,000 households in the 1,324 li of the entire province. Based on these figures, the total number of individuals per household would be 10.6. This estimate is remarkably close to the 1.568 million in Table 1, which is the population figure of Sichuan in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). This number is likely to be the number of registered and taxed Han population. Daming Yitongzhi (Topographic Treaties of the Ming Dynasty), edited in the Tianshun period (1457–1464), contains the numbers of li of the following ten prefectures: Chengdu, Baoning, Shunqing, Kuizhou, Chongqing, Xuzhou, Tongchuan, Meizhou, Jiading, and Luzhou. Based on the li ratio of each prefecture to the whole provincial population, we have made the following estimations about the registered population in these ten prefectures:

70 Table 5

Chapter 3 Registered prefectural population in Sichuan in Hongwu 24th year

zhangguansi (administrative units) number

zhangguansi population (100,000) and unregistered population

Prefecture

li number in Tianshun period

Ratio (%)

Estimated registered population (100,000)

Chengdu Baoning Shunqing Kuizhou Chongqing Xuzhou Tongchuan Meizhou Jiading Luzhou Total Yazhou Yongning xuanfusi Youyang xuanfusi Shizhu xuanfusi Mahu Wumeng Dongchuan Wusa Zhenxiong Total

230 60 111 67 380 204 65 35 72 100 1,324 12 7

17.1 4.5 8.2 5.0 28.2 15.1 4.8 2.6 5.3 7.4 100

27.3 7.1 13.2 8.0 45.1 24.2 7.7 4.2 8.5 11.9 157.2 1.4 0.8

2

0.8

10

1.1

3

1.5

3

0.4

1

0.4

8 1 1 1 1 44

1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.2

5

1.5 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 13.0

11

Sources: Vol. 63–73 Daming Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Geography of the Ming Dynasty) edited in the Tianshun period (1457–1464). The li numbers of Yongning, Youyang, Shizhu, and the Wuhu five prefectures of Mahu, Zhenxiong, Wumeng, Wusa, and Dongchuan are from Liang Fangzhong’s (2008, p. 308) Zhongguo lidai hukou, tiandi, tianfu tongji (Statistics on Chinese Household Registries, Farmland and Land Tax Through the Ages). Lizhou (see Appendix 1) was reduced from an anfusi to a qianhusuo directly governed by Sichuan dousi

Population of Prefectures in the Hongwu Period

71

The li numbers of nine prefectures, Yazhou, Yongning, Youyang, Shizhu, Mahu, Wumeng, Dongchuan, Wusa, and Zhenxiong, can be found in Dushi Fangyu Jiyao (Essence of Historical Geography)16 written by Gu Zuyu’s (1631–1692 or 1624–1680) the Qing Dynasty geographer. While the numbers were not specifically from the Tianshun period (1457–1464), evidence suggests that the conditions of that period were almost exactly as depicted by Gu, especially with regard to ethnic minority areas. So, even though there is a lack of official data about Tianshun, it is possible to make an estimation based on the statistics provided in Gu’s book. That explains why here, we have used the li numbers of the ethnic minority areas in the book to represent the li numbers in these regions during the Tianshun period (1457–1464). Based on our knowledge that Chengdu and the other nine prefectures with recorded data had 1,187 inhabitants per li, we are able to estimate the registered population of Yazhou and the remaining eight prefectures and si (see Table 5). We will mention in the next chapter in our discussion of the Guizhou statistics that each zhangguansi had about 3,800 inhabitants and that this figure provides clues to the total inhabitants in a zhangguansi in the prefectures and si in Sichuan. Considering that Youyang and Shizhu were under the jurisdiction of Chongqing wei, we have included their population by adding a further 38,000 inhabitants from these two li-jia and zhangguansi to the Chongqing number. It needs to be pointed out that, in regions where there were no zhangguansi (administrative government), a considerable number of ethnic minorities went unregistered. Again, using the same calculation method discussed in the next chapter, we estimate that the west of Guiyang, including Bijie and the other wei regions, had about 22,000 unregistered inhabitants. Similarly, an estimate can be made of the population of Wumeng and the other four prefectures, as detailed in Appendix 1. 16 Translator’s note: The book covers a wide range of issues in the pre-Ming times, particularly topography and its impact on military strategies. The author, Gu, uses the administrative division of the late Ming and early Qing.

Chapter 4

The Military Population and the Population of National Minorities in the Ming Dynasty 1

The Northeastern Region

Liaodong Dusi 1.1 In February of 1371 (Hongwu 4th year), the former Mongol-Yuan (the remaining power of the former Yuan Dynasty in the Ming Dynasty) general Liu Yi hauled down the flag with thousands of his troops to the Ming imperial court. The court then set up the Liaodong Military Commission in the town of Deliying (present-day Wafangdian city in Liaoning province). The increasing number of the former Mongol-Yuan soldiers who surrendered increased the population of wei-suo. Up until 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), there had been 17 wei (garrison) in Liaodong. However, the number later increased to 20 wei in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) and 23 wei in 1395 (Hongwu 28th year).1 If we compare the number of soldiers respectively in all Liaodong wei-suo as recorded in the “Book on Army Provisions,” Vol. 23 of The Liaodong Chronicle and the “Military Management,” Vol. 2 of The Liao Chronicle, it is clear that each wei was organized according to a standard 5,600 soldiers. In addition, the Ming government stipulated that military personnel take their family dependents to the frontiers where they were to station. Based on the fact that each service could take an average of 2.54 family dependents,2 it can be concluded that there were about 396,000 inhabitants (servicemen and their family dependents) in Liaodong military wei during 1391. In 1387 (Hongwu 11th year), the subprefectures and counties of Liaodong were canceled; some local residents were transferred to the soldier register of the military wei, and others were governed by the military wei. All the wei in

1 Bi Gong. “Geography”, Vol. 1 of The Liaodong Chronicle; “Geography”, Vol. 41 of The Ming History; “The Book on Change and Development”, Vol. 1 of The Quanliao Chronicle. 2 According to Vol. 91 of Mingtaizu Shilu (p. 1599), in the autumn (July in the lunar calendar) of the 7th year of the Hongwu period, the jianshi commander Tuoliebo in Guangxi huwei convened his former Mongol-Yuan soldiers (about 1,360 people) who took their family dependents (about 3,460 people).On average, one serviceman took 2.54 dependents. 5600*5*3.54 = 99120.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_005

The Military Population and the Population

73

Liaodong opened “wei schools” for children with military household registration and “social schools”3 for children with civilian household registration. In “Geography: Customs” of Vol. 1 of The Liaodong Records, it reads: “a new nation had come into being where people from different places gathered. And soon, the subprefectures and counties were changed into military wei where Han people accounted for 70 percent and Koreans, aboriginals, and the submissive nüzhen ethnic tribes accounted for 30 percent.” The aboriginals here mainly referred to the Mongol-Yuan generals and soldiers. According to Vol. 181 of Mingtaizu Shilu, in the lunar month of March of 1387 (Hongwu 20th year), Koreans sent back “358 refugees who came from 45 households of the Naiduolibudai tribe in the Liaoshen area” under guard to the Ming Dynasty. These refugees in Korea were aboriginals in Liaodong. What exactly was the population of “aboriginals” in Liaodong? According to Vols. 182 to 184 of Mingtaizu Shilu, in 1387, Nahachu, the Mongol-Yuan general, with his troops of 200,000 surrendered to the Ming Dynasty, and the majority of them were sent to Daning dusi and Liaodong dusi now located in the north of Hebei province and the Inner Mongolian Prairie. The population of the five wei in Liaodong wei-suo, organized under the leadership of Nahachu, was about 100,000 inhabitants.4 If the total population of Koreans and the submissive nüzhen ethnic tribes accounted for 10 percent of the population of Liaodong and the “aboriginals” 20 percent, then there were about 500,000 inhabitants in the Liaodong area. Of this number, if 400,000 inhabitants were registered as the military wei population, then the remaining 100,000 inhabitants should have been “daiguan” (appended population) of military wei transferred from civilian population registration and accounting for 20 percent of the local population. 1.2 Ethnic Minorities to the North of Liaodong According to the “Military Book” of The Ming History, the Ming government established 384 jimi (containment and conciliation) wei and 24 jimi suo under Nurgan dusi. Without any references available, if we suppose the average population of each wei was 1,000 to 2,000 inhabitants, then there were about 500,000 inhabitants under the jurisdiction of Nurgan dusi.

3 “Establishment Records”, Vol. 2 of The Quanliao Chronicle. 4 Cao, S. (1997). The Ming Period. In The History of Chinese Migration (Vol. 5) (pp. 279–282). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Press.

74 2

Chapter 4

Mongolia

2.1 The Remaining Troops of the Northern Yuan Regime Defeated by the Ming forces, the Yuan imperial court retreated to the Mongolian Plateau and established the Northern Yuan Regime to continue its regime. In the Mongolian legends, it was said that there had been 400,000 Mongolian households in the Yuan Dynasty, and 60,000 of them came back to the Mongolian Plateau after their defeat by the Ming forces.5 Some historical records did prove that this estimate of 60,000 households was correct. In fact, the remaining troops of the Northern Yuan Regime, though disintegrated, could not be underestimated by Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang. In 1387 (Hongwu 20th year), when Nahachu and his 200,000 soldiers surrendered to the Ming Dynasty, Tögüs Temür, the successor of the former Mongul-Yuan emperor, led his 100,000 tribesmen to rove as nomads around the Greater Khingan Mountains and Bei’er Lake. In the winter of 1388 (Hongwu 21st year), the Ming forces defeated Tögüs and strangled him to death; his troops escaped and scattered over the Mongolian Prairie.6 Despite the repeated clean-out and wipe-out by the Ming forces that lasted till 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), there were still 100,000 to 200,000 people, remnants of the Mongolian troops of the Northern Yuan Regime, living in these areas. 2.2 The Three Wei in Uriankhai Having campaigned over the years around the Greater Khingan Mountains, Bei’er Lake, Suhuajiang River Basin, and Huang River during the Hongwu period, the Ming forces had unavoidable contacts with the Mongolians from the three tribes of Uriankhai. In 1389 (Hongwu 22nd year), the Ming government set up three jimi wei in Uriankhai precisely at Toyan, Taining, and Fuyu. In the mid-Ming Dynasty, the rising Tartar-Mongol swept the three wei with its 30,000 soldiers. This shows that there were less than 30,000 soldiers in Uriankhai Mongol, a region that remained less prosperous at the time with a population under 100,000 inhabitants. 2.3 Other Mongol Tribes In the early years of the Ming Dynasty, the Mongolian Horqin tribe inhabited the Hulunbei’er prairie in the west of the Greater Khingan Mountains. The 5 Sanang, C. (1981). Mongol Origin and Development (annotated newly-translated version). Hohhot: Inner Mongolia People’s Press. 6 See the headword “The 21st year of the Hongwu Period” (1388) in “Biographic Sketches of Emperors 4, Taizu 4”, The Ming History.

The Military Population and the Population

75

tribesmen were not offsprings of the Central Mongol tribes; instead, they were descendants of Genghis Khan. It was in the late Ming Dynasty that the Horqin tribe began to rise and move down to the south. The Mongol population of the Horqin tribe was probably about several hundred or thousand people. Along the northern borderline of the Ming Dynasty (present-day Inner Mongolia) lived Tartar-Mongol tribes whose rise began in the mid-Ming Dynasty. In the early years of the Ming Dynasty, there were only 10,000 to 20,000 tribesmen. While the Northern Yuan Regime was still powerful during the Hongwu period, the Oirat-Mongol tribe stayed inactive in the northwest of the Mongolian Plateau (present-day State of Mongolia and Russia). After the Northern Yuan Regime was annihilated by the Ming forces, the Oirat-Mongol began to prosper. A comparative analysis of the population of other tribes indicates that the population of the Oirat-Mongol, in the Hongwu period, was no more than 100,000 inhabitants. Chagatai Khanate was the princedom of Chagatai, the second son of Genghis Khan. It was located in today’s northern and southern Tianshan mountains of Xinjiang and extended to countries including Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. In the first year of the Yuan Dynasty, Chagatai Khanate was split into the eastern and western parts. The main territory of the eastern part was present-day Xinjiang and Kazakhstan, and its population, so far, has remained unknown. In Chapter 4 of this book, the estimated population of Hami was about 30,000 to 40,000 inhabitants. We can extrapolate that the population of Xinjiang was about 300,000 inhabitants Roughly speaking, there were about 360,000 Mongolians in the Northern Yuan Mongol and the Mongolian Plateau in 1391. The population of national minorities in Mongolia and under the reign of Mongolia was probably 660,000 inhabitants if we consider the 300,000 Mongolians and other national minorities in Xinjiang. Such an estimation takes into consideration only the tribal population while the Mongolian population, registered in the military wei of the Ming Dynasty, is not included. In 1619 (Wanlin 47th year), according to Zhang Jingshi, the imperial envoy, the Mongolians living along the Ming Dynasty and the Mongol borders were fewer than 500,000.7 This also demonstrates that our estimation of the Mongolian population on the prairie (360,000) in 1391 is reasonable.

7 See the headword “November, Jiyou year/17th year of the Wanli Period” in Vol. 599 of Mingshenzong Shilu, p. 11269. Taipei: The Research Institute of History and Language of the Central Academy, 1962.

76 3

Chapter 4

The Northern Border Wei

3.1 Beiping Xingdusi In August of 1395 (Hongwu 28th year), when the Ming government finished relocating 200,000 members of the Mongol Nahachu tribe, it set up Daning wei to administer Ningchen county in present-day Chifeng city Inner Mongolia. In September, the Daning wei was further divided into Left wei, Right wei, and Central wei, and, later, Front wei and Back wei were added. The sudden appearance of four wei under one wei and within two months could not be only attributed to the hasty decision of the government but also to the fact that the increasing number of soldiers of the Nahachu tribe who came and surrendered increased the number of soldiers in the area. The following year, the name of Daning was changed to Beiping xindusi. For more details on this fact, see Vol. 185 of Mingtaizu Shilu. During the Hongwu period, there were 25 to 26 wei and several thousand-household suo under the jurisdiction of Beiping xindusi. The total number of soldiers in Beiping xindusi was about 150,000. The military wei not only included Mongolians but also servicemen recruited from inland areas and a limited number of their dependents. If each serviceman took two dependents, then the total population of these military wei was about 450,000 people. If we suppose that 15 percent of the population were local people, then their population was 80,000 inhabitants. 3.2 Shanxi Xindusi The territories under the administration of Shanxi xindusi were not quite a systematic whole; therefore, we have to discuss them from three parts: Wangquan and other wei, Datong fu, and Yongsheng and other wei. 3.2.1 Wanquan and Other Wei According to the “Records of Geography” and the “Military Book” of The Ming History, there were seven wei and one suo in the Wanquan area in the Hongwu period. Zhonghe suo was set up late in 1397 (Hongwu 30th year). The total population of the seven wei was supposed to be 118,000 (servicemen and their dependents) in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year). We may extrapolate that the daiguan population was about 30,000 in Liaodong where daiguan (appended population) accounted for 20 percent of the local population. However, this is not a fact. The number of soldiers stationed in Wanquan wei and other wei exceeded the regular registered number. According to the “Military Book 3,” Vol. 91 of The Ming History, “In the frontier fort town of Xuanfu were stationed about 100,000 officers and soldiers.” Mid-Ming Dynasty

The Military Population and the Population

77

documents also proved this fact.8 In this area, the population of the military wei, which swelt more than the regular registration, cannot be used in our extrapolation of its civic population. In 1391, there were 300,000 service members and dependents in Wanquan and other wei; the total population was 330,000 with the addition of the daiguan population. 3.2.2 Datong Region, Yongsheng, and Other Wei In 1371 (Hongwu 4th year), the Ming government set up Datong dusi in the north of Shanxi, then changed its name into Shanxi xingzhihui shisi with Datong as its capital city. Most counties were located along both sides of the Sanggan River, especially the south bank. In contrast, the military wei was located along the northern bank of the Sanggan River with the northwest part that extended to the Mongol Prairie outside the Great Wall. This was the typical feature of frontier wei. According to the “Records of Geography” of The Ming History, “There were 26 Front wei (under the administration of Datong fu) in February of the lunar calendar, 1393 and later, there were 14 wei.” In fact, documents have proved that there were only 14 wei with 235,000 servicemen and their dependents. The population of the four wei (Dongsheng, Zhengshuo, Dingbian, and Zhenglu) was stable and accounted for 28.6% of all the 14 wei. Based on this percentage, the population (servicemen and their dependents, daiguan civilian population) of Datong fu was 168,000, and the population of Yongsheng and other wei was 67,000. In Appendix Table 1, the daiguan civilian population in wei-suo was counted as part of the civilian population, while the military population stationed in Datong fu was included in its total population. 3.3 Shaanxi Dusi Shaanxi dusi was more complicated because its military wei belonged to frontier wei, part of which was under the administration of the wei-suo in inland areas. The wei-suo in the inland areas overlapped with administrative prefecture territories and counties while the frontier wei stood alone, and no prefecture or county was set up here.

8 Pan, H. (1987). Yikan Xuanfu Xinjunshu. In Ming Jingshi Wenbian (Vol. 197) (pp. 2039–2041). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

78

Chapter 4

3.3.1 The Five Wei in Ningxia In the early years of the Hongwu period, the Ming government “abandoned the administration of Ningxia and moved its inhabitants to Shaanxi. In 1376, however, five wei was established in Ningxia.”9 According to Vol. 3 of New Records of Ningxia, there still lived a large number of tumin (local aboriginals) after other residents moved to Shaanxi. In the mid-Ming Dynasty, the population of tumin increased considerably as a result of reproduction and because the people from out of Ming territory came to surrender. According to the “Records of Geography,” Ningxia wei only governed one thousand-household suo. Unfortunately, details of other wei were unknown. According to the standard 4-wei establishment, there were 67,000 inhabitants (22,000 servicemen taking their dependents) in Ningxia. If 20 percent of this total population were local aboriginals, then the population of local aboriginals who were daiguan in the military wei was about 17,000. They were relocated to Lingzhou and other places. In fact, according to the above record, Ningxia wei administered four li consisting of the civilian population. If every li had 200 households, then there were 800 households with over 4,000 inhabitants. If the four wei had the same civilian population figure, then their total population was 16,000. This draws close to the above estimation. 3.3.2 Suide Wei Suide wei was established in the Hongwu period located in present-day Suide county in Shaanxi province. Surrounded by several prefectures and counties, it was indeed an inland area wei. However, its location at the border turned it into a defense wei. Yang Yiqing mentioned that the civilian population in the city was only tens of households, and most of them were servicemen in the wei-suo.10 After Yulin wei was established in the mid-Ming Dynasty, Suide wei was moved to Yulin where it became one of the four wei in Yansui town, completely detached from other prefectures and counties. Its local civilian population was under the jurisdiction of Yan’an fu. In Appendix Table 1, the military population of Suide wei and Yan’an wei was included in the population of Yan’an fu.

9

Wang, Y. (n.d.). Tunyushu. In The Compilation of Ming Jinshi wenbian (Vol. 69) (p. 579). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. 10 Yang, Y. (1987). On the Report of the Relocation of Suide wei to Yulin City. In The Compilation of Ming Jinshi Wenbian (Vol. 118) (p. 1119). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

The Military Population and the Population

79

3.3.3 Taozhou Wei and Minzhou Wei The frontier wei under Shaanxi dusi also included Taozhou wei and Minzhou wei to which the closest wei was Hezhou. According to the standard quota of registered military population, there were 17,000 soldiers in the three wei. According to the “Military Books” of The Ming History, these soldiers had been local servicemen of the Yuan Dynasty. Their population was about 59,000 inhabitants if each serviceman was allowed 2.54 dependents. There were also local aboriginals that were added to the registration of wei-suo in Minzhou. Details can be found in the report of Xia Yuanji, Minister of Revenue, in leap lunar month July of 1368 (Hongxi 1st year), Vol. 5 of Mingxuanzong Shilu. Due to the unknown percentage of local aboriginals among the total local population, we can only base our estimates on the figures in Liaodong. If the daiguan civilian population accounted for 20%, then they were about 15,000. There were also several tubin (local aboriginal soldiers) who were, indeed, militiamen. Based on this analysis, Minzhou had the same population as Taozhou, namely about 8,000 civilians and 20,000 servicemen. In fact, the population of Minzhou was twice that of Taozhou in the mid-Qing Dynasty. Then we should increase the civilian population of Minzhou in 1391 to 20,000 people. This way, the civilian population of Minzhou was equal to its military population. The aforementioned difference could have been due to the omission of the population of local aboriginal soldiers. The record in the “Military Books” of The Ming History showed that at least 16 wei in Shaanxi dusi were not frontier wei. According to the standard organizational population, the population of the 16 wei’ was supposed to be 269,000 inhabitants (90,000 servicemen and their dependents) according to the standard registered population. 3.4 Shaanxi Xindusi There were nine wei under the administration of Shaanxi xindusi in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year). Ma Shunping has proven that the average household number of each military wei, established in the Hongwu period, was between 5,400 to 7,200, while the total number of households of the five wei in Ganzhou was only 14,444.11 This makes us assume that the Front wei and the Back wei of Ganzhou established in 1396 (Hongwu 29th year), were divided from three 11 Ma, S. (2011). A New Study on The Population of the Dusi Wei-suo in the Ming Dynasty: An Evaluation of Fang Zhizhong’s Two Groups of the Population Data on Shaanxi Xingdusi in the Ming Dynasty. Journal of Suzhou University of Science and Technology (Social Science), (4), 49–53.

80

Chapter 4

other wei. The average household number of the other wei was 2.3 people. We list the population of the nine wei established before and in 1391 in Appendix Table 1. The population of Zhuanglang wei and Linhe wei (Zhengfan wei in 1397 [Hongwu 30th year]) with no household record can be calculated based on the standard organizational population and the average 2.3 people per household. Then the total military population of the nine wei was 138,000. According to the “Records of Geography,” Liangzhou tuwei was set up in 1374 (Hongwu 7th year) prior to the setting up of Liangzhou wei in 1376. This shows that a considerable number of local aboriginals were recruited during the Hongwu period and the became soldiers in wei-suo. There were civilians in the territories of Shaanxi xingdusi although it had no prefectures or counties. For instance, when referring to the army farming issue, Liang Cai mentioned that the local people were recruited and asked to make tax payments in grain or rice to provide for the military wei.12 After the local aboriginals were recruited by the military wei during the early years of the Ming Dynasty, the remaining local people were administered by the military wei. The civilian population may include the former Mongol-Yuan soldiers submitted to the Ming imperial court. Those who came to surrender to the Ming government were relocated to the borders or the inner borderline areas. According to Vol. 216 of Mingtaizu Shilu, in the lunar month February of 1392 (Hongwu 25th year), there were over 1,700 households registered in Liangzhou wei who paid tax in grain or rice. Their total population would have been only 8,500 if each household had 5 people. The civilian population of the 9 wei in Shaanxi xingdusi was about 77,000, which did not include national minorities who migrated from Chinese Xiyu areas (western regions) and those who came to surrender to the Ming government. 3.5 The Xinjiang Region The Ming Dynasty only set up three wei (Anding, Arui, and Quxian) outside the Jiayuguan Pass in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year). The three wei were located in today’s Qiemo, Ruoqiang, and Lup Nur in Xinjiang. Other wei near the Jiayuguan Pass were set up from the later Hongwu period to the Yongle period; their population, however, was under the administration of the Ming government. Hami wei was an exception. It had been the fief of the Yuang imperial clan and was subjected to the Ming Dynasty till 1405 (Yongle 4th year). The 12 Liang, C. (n.d.). Huiyi Wanglu Junliang ji Neifu Shouna Shu (Conferring on the Submitted Reports by Wanglu on the Collection of Military Provisions and of Provisions for the Imperial Household Department), In The Compilation of Ming Jingshi Wenbian (Vol. 103) (pp. 921–927). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

The Military Population and the Population

81

wei of the following year was set up in Hami. According to related records, the population of the other six wei around Hami was only about hundreds or thousands. In 1482 (Chenghua 18th year), Hami wei collaborated with other two wei and recovered all Hami territories that the forces in the Hami headquarter increased to 8,000 soldiers. Accordingly, the population of the six wei outside Jiayuguan Pass was at most 30,000 to 40,000 inhabitants same as that of Hami wei. If the population in Xinjiang was about 300,000, there remained 230,000 inhabitants scattered in the vast Yilibali area of Xinjiang besides the 70,000 inhabitants in Hami and other wei. 4

The Southwest Region

Sichuan Dusi 4.1 Western Sichuan was a close neighbor of Tibet. In addition to the Tibetans, other national minorities lived in western Sichuan. To reinforce its control over this region, the Ming government set up several military wei, which functioned as frontier defense wei. In 1379 (Hongwu 20th year), Songzhou wei was set up in the northwest of Sichuan under the administration of Sichuan dusi. According to Vol. 15 of A General Record of Sichuan, Songpan wei governed 21 civilian li with a population of about 21,000 inhabitants, given that each li had 200 households. These figures only included registered civilians that excluded the unregistered population of national minorities. With only one thousand-household suo, Songjia wei had only a small military population. According to the “Records of Geography” of The Ming History, the national minorities under the administration of Songpai wei were incorporated into the records of zhangguansi and Anfu si. There were altogether 16 zhangguansi and 5 anfusi in Songpan wei, 13 of which were set up in 1381 and 3 of which were established in the Xuande and Zhengtong periods. The national minority population administered by zhangguansi was generally considered as having duly registered in the official documents. Up until the mid-Ming Dynasty, there was one li in one zhangguansi. Accordingly, the national minority population was about 13,000 in the 13 zhangguansi during the Hongwu period. Other national minorities had a later entry into household registration. According to Vol. 237 of Mingtaizu Shilu, in March of the lunar calendar, in 1395 (Hongwu 28th year), the cavalry and infantry from Shaanxi and Sichuan dusi went on a punitive expedition in xifan (Chinese western barbaric areas) and captured 1,670 people. A total of 509 households were “compiled into the household registration system, and they paid their taxes.” These “barbarians”

82

Chapter 4

were relocated to southwestern Shaanxi and northwestern Sichuan. The relocated people in Sichuan mainly lived in Songpan wei. The 509 households could not be divided into 21 li even if all of them were relocated in Songpan wei because the population of Songjiang wei also consisted of other people from different places. In 1389 (Hongwu 22nd year), Longzhou became Longzhou Thousandhousehold suo under the administration of Sichuan dusi. In 1432 (Xuande 7th year), it was changed to Longzhou Xuanfu si directly under the administration of Sichuan buzhengsi. This is testimony of the growing population of its local civilians. As evident on the map, zhangguansi under Songpan wei was located in the neighboring area of Longzhou and had the same area as Longzhou. In this sense, the population of Longzhou Thousand-household suo in 1391 amounted to that of Songpan wei. In the south of Songpan wei was Diexi governing military and civilian thousand-household suo and two leading zhangguansi incorporating a 2,000 national minority population. This shows that the frontier wei in Sichuan had already had direct control over its population of national minorities. In 1388 (Hongwu 21st year), the Liufan Zhaotao Department in Tianquan was governed by Sichuan dusi and its area was 3.8 times that of Diexi suo. Based on the available limited data, we assume that the civilian population under its administration was also 3.8 times that of Diexi suo. The southeastern area of Sichuan was also a settlement for national minorities under the administration of Sichuan buzhengsi. Their population was supposed to be included in the total population of Sichuan buzhengsi. 4.2 Sichuan Xingdusi Sichuan xingdusi was located in the southwest Sichuan, and it had jurisdiction over 5 wei, 8 suo, and 4 zhangguansi. Most of its military wei were established from 1388 (Hognwu 21st year) to 1392 (Hongwu 25th year) and, respectively, belonged to Sichuan and Yunnan. In 1393 (Hongwu 26th year), they belonged to Sichuan dusi when its local prefectures, subprefectures, and counties were canceled. Therefore, Sichuan xingdusi functioned as a frontier wei. On the map of Sichuan of late 1393, there was no Sichuan xingdusi. For convenience, we continue to refer to this area as Sichuan xingdusi. The four zhangguansi under the governance of Sichuan xingdusi could, in effect, implement the administrative power over the population of the local minority nationalities. Take Jianchang wei as example; according to the “Biography of Sichuan Minority Hereditary Headmen” in The Ming History, the former Yuan generals who had surrendered to the Ming government were appointed Commander of Jiancha wei in 1382 (Hongwu 15th year). This

The Military Population and the Population

83

indicates that Jianchang wei was set up just like Jimi wei. In 1391, Jiachang wei, Suzhou wei, and Huichuan suo were set all up and “about 5,000 soldiers in Jing wei and Shaanxi were dispatched to station there”. Meanwhile, Yanjin wei was added soon. Till then, the Chinese Han servicemen had full control of this area. The 15,000 soldiers of the two wei and one suo slightly exceeded the standard military population of similar units because some soldiers had been part of the Mongol-Yuan force and were subjected to the mandatory management of wei-suo local aboriginals. According to the standard troop configuration, there were 37,000 soldiers in the five wei and eight suo under the jurisdiction of Sichuan xingdusi, and their total population was up to about 111,000. In Vol. 15 of A General Record of Sichuan, households under the jurisdiction of Sichuan xingdusi totaled 67 li. If calculated based on 200 households per li, then there were at least 67,000 registered civilians. The 67 li might not be the statistics during the Hongwu period, but it is not entirely different from the record of that period. 4.3 Guizhou Dusi 4.3.1 Military Wei population During the Hongwu period, Guizhou was not a province but a dusi division. According to the “Military Book,” Vol. 90 of The Ming History, during the Hongwu period, there were eighteen wei and one suo under the jurisdiction of Guizhou dusi. In addition to the two wei—Guizhou and Guiqian, there were six wei to the west of Guiyang—Weiqing, Pingba, Puding, Anzhuang, Annan, and Pu’an, known as “Upper Six Wei.” To the east of Guiyang were six wei— Longli, Xintian, Pingyue, Qingping, Xinglong, and Duyun—known as “Lower Six Wei.” In the northwest corner of Guiyang were “West four wei”—Wursa, Bijie, Chishui, and Yongning. However, Wusa and Yongning were located in Sichuan and were thus excluded from Guizhou.13 Under Huguang dusi, the six wei—Zhenyuan, Pingxi, Qinglang, Pianqiao, Wukai, Jiuxi—were called “Six Side Wei.” Jiuxi wei was located in Cili, Hunan, and the other five wei were located in Guizhou. The “Upper Six Wei” were in charge of seven zhangguansi, while the “Lower Six Wei” were in charge of 18 zhangguansi. In eastern Guiyang, the function of the military wei as border guards was more obvious. In the region of the “Six Side Wei,” the function of the military wei as border guards was performed in other ways. Take the place of Liping Fu as an 13

Although Pushi suo and most part of Chishui wei were located in today’s Sichuan province, the territory under their jurisdiction indeed did not belong to any administrative region of Sicuan. Therefore, we still consider the territory under the jurisdiction of Chishui wei as Guizhou.

84

Chapter 4

example, Wukai wei was set up here in 1413, and there were almost sixteen thousand-household suo under its control. In addition, Tonggu wei was set up in 1397 (Hongwu 30th year). Liping fu was later set up and placed inside Weicheng (the city that was the headquarters of the wei) after the establishment of Guizhou buzhengsi in 1413 (Yongle 11th year). There was no civilian prefecture or county in Liping fu, but the dozens of thousands of households densely distributed there constituted the main body of local Han Chinese except for the local Tusi (minority hereditary headmen). It should be noted that before the establishment of Liping fu, these local Tusi had been administered by wei. According to the Military Book, Vol. 90 of The Ming History and Vols. 1 and 17 of Guizhou Tujing Xinshi, there were 129 thousand-household suo under the control of Guizhou dusi and in Guizhou before 1391 (Hongwu 26th year). Equally, there were 118 thousand household suo, excluding 11, in Sichuan. In terms of standard troop size, there were possibly 130,000 soldiers with about 390 000 dependents. Although some local natives in Guizhou joined the local military wei, which was called Tujun (local army), they acted as militia. Details of the actions will not be described here. 4.3.2 The Population of Zhangguan (Xuanwei) Si In 1413 (Yongle 11th year), Guizhou buzhengsi was established to govern eight fu, one prefecture, one county, and one xuanweisi. According to Vol. 74 of Mingtaizu Shilu, in June of the lunar calendar in 1372 (Hongwu 5th year), zhangguansi, under Sinan xuanweisi of Sichuan, was governed based on two systems: one that governed Huguang, belonging to Huguang buzhengsi, and the other which governed Chenzhou wei belonging to Huguang dusi. That means, the zhangguansi, which was governed by the military wei, did not break away from the buzhengsi system. As recorded in Vol. 187 of Mingtaizu Shilu, in November of 1387 (Hongwu 20th year), Zhou Ji, commander of the military and civil affairs department of Pu’an wei, reported that the 12 zhangguansi in Guzhou governed 9,217 households, and the autumn grain collected from them was 8,929 dan (stones). Pingyue wei and Duyun anfusi reported that 8,343 households were administered by their zhangguansi and the annual grain collection was 699 dan (stones). These figures were recorded in the Household Ministry. Therefore, it can be inferred that the population, taxes, and grain collection of zhangguansi under the military wei were actually regulated under the administration of the Household Ministry. The military wei that administered zhangguansi performed two functions: govern the army and manage civil affairs. In Chapter 3, I pointed out that there was a gap of 300,000 people between the total population of Huguang buzhengsi, and that added up by

The Military Population and the Population

85

the population of each county in 1391. This gap should be the population of national minorities living in west Hunan, Guizhou, and other regions administered by Huguang. According to the data cited above, there were 12 zhangguansi in Guzhou, each with an average population of 3,840 inhabitants. In “Records of Geography,” Vol. 46 of The Ming History, maintain that there were 11 zhangguansi in Zhipingyue wei and Duyun fu, and each zhangguansi in Pingyue and Duyun had an average population of 3,792 inhabitants. This shows that the population of each zhangguansi was roughly the same. By adding the population of the 23 zhangguansi, we obtain an average population of 3,820 inhabitants for each zhangguansi. This can serve as a reference for our later estimation of the population of other zhangguansi. Vol. 137 of Mingtaizu Shilu maintains that in February of 1413, Xia Yuanji and other officials discussed the possibility of setting up eight fu in Sizhou and Sinan located on the eastern part of Guizhou; six fu were set up with the regions under the control of the original Upper Six Wei and Lower Six Wei excluded from the list. In this record, Sizhou had jurisdiction over twenty-two zhangguansi and Sinan over seventeen zhangguansi. Based on data indicating that the annual population under the jurisdiction of zhangguansi was 3,820 inhabitants, we can conclude that the total population of ethnic minorities under the jurisdiction of Huguang buzhengsi was 150,000 inhabitants. Therefore, the population of ethnic minorities in eastern Guizhou who registered in the civil registry of Huguang was about 196,000. In Appendix Table 1, these people are listed under Sizhou and Sinan’s headings. 4.3.3 Unregistered Population According to “Geographical Records,” Vol. 46 of The Ming History, by the late Ming Dynasty, there were seventy-six zhangguansi, nine prefectures, and fourteen counties in Guizhou (excluding Banzhou) with prefectures and counties mainly governing the Han population. Suppose that the population of ethnic minorities under the jurisdiction of a county was equal to the population of a zhangguansi, then the population of ethnic minorities under the jurisdiction of a prefecture was equal to the population of two zhangguansi. It should be noted that there were 108 zhangguansi and county-level units. In 1391, even though these 108 zhangguansi units did not fully exist, there must have been corresponding population within their borders. In 1393, we assume that each zhangguansi had 3,820 inhabitants, then the total population was 415,000. Of course, this figure included the population of 196,000 in all zhangguansi of eastern Guizhou. In the Geographical Records of The Ming History, some regions in western Guizhou merely functioned as weisuo and had neither prefecture, county, nor

86

Chapter 4

zhangguansi. For example, Bijie, Chishui, Wusa, Weiqing, Pingba, Anzhuang, An’nan, Pu’an, and other regions under the control of wei as well as Guizhou xuanweisi (excluding Guiyang military and civil fu). However, the absence of prefectures, counties, and zhangguansi does not amount to the absence of minority populations in this area. If considered as part of the administrative system of the Qing Dynasty, this area would be equivalent to Dading fu, Xingyi fu (excluding the counties of Zhenfeng and Ceheng), Pu’an ting and the counties of Anping (Ping Ba), and Qingzheng in Anshun fu during the Jiaqing period of the Qing Dynasty. In fact, only Fuquan county in Pingyue prefecture during the Jiaqing period of the Qing Dynasty belonged to the old region of Pingyue wei of the Ming Dynasty; the other three counties in Pingyue prefecture had been in Bozhou during the Ming Dynasty. Therefore, we tend to consider Pingyue in the Qing Dynasty as Bozhou in the Ming Dynasty. Thus, in our estimation, we exclude Pingyue and Bozhou. According to Daqing Yitong Zhi (Comprehensive Geography of the Great Qing) compiled in the Jiaqing period, the total population of Bijie and seven other wei, in 1392, was equivalent to about 23.4% of the total population of Guizhou (excluding Zunyi fu and Pingyue prefecture) in the same period. If we subtract Pingyue wei from the 410,000 military population of Guizhou during the Hongwu period, there were 390,000 people left. With the addition of 415,000 people in zhangguansi and unregistered population outside western Guizhou, the total population was 805,000. According to Vols. 1–17 of Guizhou Tujing Xinzhi compiled in the Hongzhi period, Bijie and other seven wei had 41 suo whose military population was about 138,000, accounting for about 17.1% (13.8/80.5) of the population of Guizhou (excluding Banzhou and Pingyue); there is a 6.2% difference compared to the percentage in 1820. This indicates that there were indeed a large number of unnaturalized minority people in the areas of Bijie and other seven wei and xuanweisi in Guizhou. In 1820, the population of Bijie, other seven wei, and xuanweisi areas in Guizhou accounted for 28% of the population of Guizhou (excluding Zunyi and Pingyue); in 1953, it rose to 35%.14 However, during the 19th and 20th centuries, the population of Bijie, seven other wei, and xuanwushi areas in Guizhou could not have grown faster than that of other areas in Guizhou. This suggests that from the Hongwu period to 1953, the population of Bijie and seven other wei areas gradually input into the national household register. If the total population of Bijie, seven other wei, and xuanweisi areas in Guizhou accounted for 14 Cao, S. (2001). The Ming Period. In The History of Chinese Population (Vol. 5). Shanghai: Fudan University Press. The calculation here made reference to the figures in Table 需要 修改.

The Military Population and the Population

87

35% of the total population of Guizhou (excluding Bozhou and Pingyue) during the Hongwu period, then we can deduce that the unregistered population in Bijie, seven other wei, and xuanweisi areas in Guizhou was 218,000.15 All Zhangguansi in xuanweisi areas of Guizhou were located in the eastern region that was later named Guiyang Fu. The unregistered population was mainly distributed in the western part of xuanweisi in Guizhou as well as in areas under the jurisdiction of Bijie and seven other wei. The western part of xuanweisi in Guizhou was quite vast—about half of the area of Bijie and seven other wei. Accordingly, the 218,000 unregistered population can be divided into 12 units of wei, each with an unregistered population of 18,000. In fact, Weiqing and Pingba were so close to Guiyang and occupied such a small area that we could ignore their population. For the other 10 wei units, each had about 22,000 unregistered people. In 1393, Bozhou xuanweisi (present-day Zunyi city) was transferred to Guizhou dusi. In 1394, it was transferred to Sichuan buzhengsi. Citing relevant documents, Mr. Tan Qixiang maintains that in 1600 (Wanli 28th year), the leaders of the Rebel Party in the Ping-Bo Battle were captured and executed, and 126,000 inhabitants of Bozhou surrendered. The number of these people amounts to one-tenth or two-tenths of the pre-war population.16 This data is exaggerated given that if people who died or migrated accounted for 90% of Bozhou inhabitants, then the population of Bozhou, before the Ping-Bo Battle, could have been 1.26 million, which is inappropriate. On the contrary, if the people who died or migrated accounted for 80% of the population, the original population could have been 630,000. With an average annual growth rate of 4‰, the population of Bozhou was about 270,000 in 1391 with the use of regression analysis. Relatively speaking, Bozhou was much closer to areas where Han people were densely populated than other parts of Guizhou, meaning that the Han population was probably denser than in other parts of Guizhou. As cited above, according to the information collected in 1413 (Yongle 11th year), there were 22 and 17 zhangguansi in Sinan and Sizhou, respectively. Although these zhangguansi were not set up in the Hongwu period, there were inhabitants in these areas during this period; they were indigenous people, not immigrants. As a result, Sinan had 25 zhuangguansi, and Sizhou still had 17 while the total population of Guizhou was 1,423,000 inhabitants. 15 Suppose the unregistered population of Bijie, other seven wei and xuanwushi areas in Guizhou were X. Then (13.8 + X)/(80.5 + X) = 0.35, X = 218,000. 16 Tan, Q.(1987). A research on the hereditary headmen “Yangbao” in Bozhou. In The Changshui Collection (Book 1) (pp. 287–288). Beijing: People’s Press.

88 Table 6

Chapter 4 The population distribution of Guizhou in 1391. Population counting unit: 1,000 people

wei-suo

zhi-suo

Affliliation

Guizhou xuanweisi Guiyang military-civic fu Guizhou wei Guizhou front wei Weiqing wei Pingba wei Anzhuang wei Annan wei Pu’an wei Bijie wei Chishui wei Puding wei Xinglong wei Qingping wei Duyun wei Pingyue wei Xintian wei Longli wei Pingxi wei Tongren fu Shiqian fu Qinglang wei Zhengyuan wei Pianqiao wei Wukai wei Huangping suo Bozhou xuanweisi Sinan xuanweisi Sizhou xuanweisi Total

Guiyang Guiyang Guiyang Guiyang Qingzheng Pingba Zhengning Qinglong Panxian Bijie Bijie Anshun Huangping Qingping Duyun Fuquan Guiding Longli Yupinpin Tongren Shiqian Cenggong Zhengyuan Shibing Liping Huangping Zunyi Sinan Cenggong 　

Sichuan buzhengsi Sichuan buzhengsi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Guizhou dusi Huguang dusi Huguang dusi Huguang dusi Huguang dusi Huguang dusi Huguang dusi Huguang dusi Huguang dusi Guizhou dusi Huguang buzhengsi Huguang buzhengsi 　

Thousandhousehold suo 　 5 5 2 5 6 5 5 5 8 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 　 5 5 5 16 1 　 　 118

Note: (1) The Guiyang Military-civic fu was separated from Guizhou xuanweisi in 1476. Both Tongren fu and Shiqian fu had been part of Sizhou xuanweisi and were set up and separated from it in 1413 (Chenghua 12th year). It is not clear to which region Sizhou xuanweisi was affiliated; it was possibly under the control of Huguang buzhengsi. In addition, Guizhou xuanweisi belonged

89

The Military Population and the Population

zhangguansi

　 0 0 0 0 1 　 0 0 6 0 2 7 2 5 2 0 　 0 0 0 0 0 　 　 25

Prefecture + country + zhangguansi 0+0+7 3 + 2 + 16 0 0+0+0 0+0+0 0+0+0 0+0+0 0+0+0 0+0+0 0+0+0 0+0+0 3+0+6 0+0+0 0+0+0 2+1+8 1+3+2 0+0+5 0+0+1 0+0+0 0+1+5 0+1+3 0+0+0 0+2+3 0+0+0 0 + 1 + 13 0+0+0 1+4+0 0 + 3 + 22 0 + 0 + 17 10 + 18 + 76

Zhangguansi unit

7 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 13 7 5 1 6 4 0 5 14 0 25 17 140

population

Miliatry registry

113 92 0 0 0 0 22 22 22 22 22 68 0 0 50 27 19 4 0 23 15 0 19 0 54 0 270 96 65 1025

0 0 17 17 7 17 20 17 17 17 26 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 0 0 17 17 17 53 3 0 0 0 398

to Sichuan buzhengsi; Wusa wei and Yongning wei were located in Sichuan, while Jiuxi wei was in Hunan. Therefore, these regions are not considered in our estimation. (2) The italicized figures were either not or only partially the calculation result based on the unit of zhangguansi.

90

Chapter 4

According to Table 6, among all the military wei of Guizhou dusi, at least five wei—Xinglong, Qingping, Pingxi, Qinglang, and Pianqiao—did not have a zhangguansi and neither did they have jurisdiction over a prefecture or county. In fact, the precincts of these five military wei were significantly small, with one military wei almost a present-day county. They were also densely distributed along the present-day Xiangqian Railway. Obviously, these five military wei had the important responsibility of securing the Xiangqian transportation line. On the contrary, controlling the minority population was not their main task. 4.4 Yunnan 4.4.1 The Military Population In September of 1381 (Hongwu 14th year), Zhu Yuanzhang ordered Fu Youde, Lan Yu, and Mu Ying to lead an expedition to Yunnan. In February of the following year, Yunnan was subdued, and military wei were set up. Gu Cheng (1989) provided a detailed explanation of the nature of the border wei in Yunnan during the Hongwu period. He maintained, “As a geographical unit, wei-suo in Yunnan were unique in that they not only governed the general wei areas and populations, but also directly administered some prefectures and counties … Because the prefectures and counties under the jurisdiction of wei were affiliated to different institutions, their land and population could not be included in the registers of Yunnan buzhengsi and those of the Ministry of Household Affairs.”17 The number of wei-suo in Yunnan has changed from time to time since the early Ming Dynasty. Up until 1393, there were 16 military wei, 3 yu (imperial guard), and 8 qianhusuo (thousand-household suo). According to Vol. 16 of A General Record of Yunnanedited during the Yongzheng period, each yu governed 2 suo, which amounted to 94 qianhusuo. In view of the standard organizational system, there should have been nearly 105,000 soldiers and a total population of 316,000, including family dependents. By the mid-and late-Ming Dynasty, like it was customary nationwide, there were only 60,000 soldiers in the military wei of Yunnan, a decrease of almost half in the number of soldiers. 4.4.2 The Population of Li-Jia Liang Fangzhong added up the number of li of all counties recorded in Daming Yitongzhi (Topographic Treatise of the Ming Dynasty) and found that there were

17 Gu, C. (1989). The territory administrative system of the Ming empire. Historical Studies. (3).

The Military Population and the Population

91

559 li in Yunnan. We found that there were 626 li belonging to areas whose number of li was not accounted for in Daming Yitongzhi by adding up the number of li recorded in Dushi Fangyu Jiyyao (Essentials of Historical Geography). According to Table 1, the population of Yunnan in 1391 was 350,000. There were 559 li, and each li had 125.2 households, a number which is consistent with the li-jia standard in the early Ming Dynasty. In addition to 110 households per li, there were 15 jiling households (widowers, widows, orphans, and other people without a provider). There is also a second kind of algorithm. Under the headword “The 1st Month of the 26th year of Hongwu” in Vol. 218 of Mingtaizu Shilu is a record of Muying’s merits in conquering Yunnan during 1382. The record maintains that “108 fu, zhou, counties, xuanweisi, and zhangguansi were then recovered to govern over 74,600 households.” Therefore, there is an additional 4,600 households compared with those in Table 1, and they can be further divided into 37 li. After adding the 37 li and the number of li from Dushi Fangyu Jijiao, the total population of the 626 li is 391,000. 4.4.3 The Population of Zhangguansi According to the “Records of Geography,” Vol. 46 of The Ming History, there were 4 divisions under the jurisdiction of Yongning. They were located in the Tibetan region outside Yunnan, and are not considered in our estimation. Yuanjiang military and civic fu governed Fenghua prefecture, formerly Yuanlopidian zhangguansi and consisted of 8 li (according to Daming Yitongzhi). Therefore, it is no longer counted as zhangguansi. The military and civic xuanwei shisi in Cheli governed most areas of Pu’er fu in the Qing Dynasty (excluding Weiyuan). These areas amount to four counties in present-day Xishuangbanna. Therefore, we counted them as four zhangguansi. Geographically speaking, a zhangguansi was about the size of a county, meaning there were 28 zhangguansi in Yunnan. In Daming Yitongzhi, Fenghua prefecture under Yuanjiang, also known as the Yuanluo Bidian zhangguansi, was realigned into 8 li with a total population of 5,000 inhabitants, which was larger than the population of 3800 people per zhangguansi in Guizhou. This may also be one of the reasons for the smaller number of zhanggunsi in Yunnan. Based on these figures, the 28 zhangguansi had a total population of 140,000. There would be 792,000 people in the whole Yunnan province if the population of Jiangjun wei, li-jia, and zhangguansi were added up. However, such estimation did not exclude the areas governed by Bangladesh and Myanmar (present-day Lincang and Shuangjiang counties), Gangya si (present-day Yingjiang County), and Longchuan fu (present-day Ruili County and Longchuan area) with no li-jia, wei-suo, and even zhangguansi and considered as the blank areas in population estimation.

92

Chapter 4

4.4.4 Validation and Extrapolation In this section, the 1776–1820 population growth in each fu is used to extrapolate the population in 1393. When the sum of the three population types (the population of Jiangjun wei, li-jia, and zhangguansi) in 1393 is greater than the extrapolation number, the former is considered as a valid estimation. However, when the sum of the three types of population in 1393 is smaller than the extrapolation number, the latter is considered a valid estimation. The only exception is Dali fu, whose population needs special consideration. For those areas governed by Bangladesh and Myanmar, Gangya si, and Longchuan fu without the three types of population, we directly adopt the regression statistics from the annual average growth between 1776 and 1820. In Yunnan fu, for example, there were no ethnic minorities, meaning the inhabitants of li-jia and military wei constituted the entire population. Based on the number of li and military wei, we find that the population of Yunnan fu was 132,000 in 1393 and 1,011,000 in 1776. From 1393 to 1776, the average annual population growth rate was 5.3‰, and from 1776 to 1820, it was 6.3‰. If we use 6.3‰ as a regression figure, then the population of Yunnan Province in 1393 was only 91,000 inhabitants. In Table 7, the number 132,000 was adopted instead of 91,000. In Chengjiang fu, where there also lived no ethnic minorities, the population of li-jia was only 10,000 inhabitants in 1393, and no population was subject to the administration of military wei. In 1776, the population of Chengjiang fu was 430,000 and the average annual population growth rate was 9.8‰ from 1393 to 1776. However, from 1776 to 1820, the average annual population growth rate was only 6.2‰. This leads to the suspicion that the population in 1393 was considerably underestimated. Considering the average annual population growth rate of 6.2‰ as the regression figure, we calculate that the population of Chengjiang fu in 1393 was as high as 40,000. In Table 7, 40,000 was adopted instead of 10,000. According to the 1953data, the population of Chengjiang fu was about one-third that of Yunnan fu, while in the 1393 data that was based on the sum of the three types of population, the population of Chengjiang fu was only one-thirteenth that of Yunnan fu. It is obvious that the population of Chengjiang fu in 1393 was underestimated. In Dali fu, the ethnic minorities, mainly Bai, lived in Dali, Eryuan, and Yunlong counties and accounted for 41.6% of the population of Dali fu. Earlier, they had accepted the Chinese culture and become subjects of the Central Plain imperial court. Compared with areas where the Han population lived, the administration of the Qing Dynasty in this region made no alterations. In 1393, the population of li-jia and wei-suo in Dali fu was 126,000; in 1776, it was 746,000 with an average annual population growth rate of 4.7‰ from 1776 to 1820. Taking this growth rate as a regression figure, the population was only

93

The Military Population and the Population Table 7

Yunnan population per fu in 1391. Population counting unit: thousand li

Military wei

Administrative Region

li

Yunnan fu Qujing fu Xundian fu Lin’an fu Chengjiang fu Guangxi fu Guangnan fu Yuanjiang fu Chuxiong fu Zhele diansi* Yao’an fu Wuding fu Jingdong fu* Dali fu Heqing fu Lijiang fu Menghua fu Shunning fu Mengding fu areas governed by Bangladesh and Myanmar * Dahou si Jinchi si* Mangshi si* Zhengkang zhou* Wandian zhou* Gangya si* Nan diansi* Longchuan fu* Cheli si Weiyuan zhou Total

79 34 7 63 16 31 8 16 34 5 8 23 8 140 53 29 30 2

49 21 4 39 10 19 5 10 21 0 5 14 5 88 33 18 19 1 0 0

25 20 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 10 0 0 5 0 0 0

83 66 0 17 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 17 33 0 0 17 0 0 0

4 24

3 15 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 391

0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80

0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 264

zhangguansi

Total

Population Thousand- Population Zhangguansi Population (1) household suo

4 4

4 626

9

1 1

1

1

1 7 1 1 1 4 28

0 0 0 45 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 35 5 0 5 0 5 0 20 0 140

(2) (3)

132 91 87 31 4 5 101 111 10 40 19 7 5 33 15 17 38 31 5 3 5 9 14 10 22 78 126 75 33 40 18 78 36 19 1 7 5 12 0 5

132 87 5 111 40 19 33 17 38 5 9 14 78 126 40 78 36 7 12 5

8 4 8 67 13 67 5 2 5 3 0 3 8 1 8 0 2 2 5 1 5 0 3 3 20 42 42 3 8 8 792 778 1048

Note: First, Lin’an fu included Lin’an fu and Kaihua fu of the Qing Dynasty; Zhele diansi included Zhengyuan county; Mengding fu included Menglian county. Dahou si was Yun country; Jinchi si was the northern area of Yongchang fu and Tengyue ting of the Qing Dynasty; Cheli si was part of Pu’er fu of the Qing Dynasty excluding Weiyuan zhou. The administrative regions with * belonged to Luchuan area. Second, under the total population, (1) means the addition of the population of li, military wei, and zhangguansi; (2) means the population extrapolated according to the annual average population growth rate from 1776 to 1820; (3) is the finalized population verified through (1) and (2).

94

Chapter 4

75,000 in 1393. In Table 7, the sum of the three types of population in 1393 was directly used to calculate the population in 1393. The calculation of the total population per fu in 1393 makes it possible to determine the population per fu at each standard point in time by separately extrapolating the standard annual average growth rate between 1393–1776. Details are shown in Table 7. Calculated based on the administrative divisions in 1393, the population of Yunnan in 1393 was 1,048,000 inhabitants, nearly 256,000 more than the sum of the population of li-jia, military wei, and zhangguansi. The figures in Table 6 show the population of each fu in 1580, 1630, 1650, and 1680 calculated according to the average annual population growth rate from 1393 to 1776. Up until 1580, the population of Yunnan was 2.617 million, and the average annual population growth rate from 1393 to 1580 was 4.9‰. 4.5 Huguang According to the “Records of Geography” of The Ming History, there were 1 Shizhou wei, 4 xuanfusi, 9 anfusi, 13 zhangguansi, 5 manyi (barbaric people) guansi, and 2 zhangguansi governed directly by wei. Therefore, there were 15 zhangguansi and then 20 si after including manyi guansi. If Anfu si, which governed zhangguansi, is treated as a zhangguansi, then we have 29 zhangguansi; if xuanfusi, which included zhangguansi, is treated as 2 zhangguansi at the same time it is treated as 1 zhangguansi, then we have 36 zhangguansi in total. Guzhou in Guizhou can be considered an example here. If each si governed 3,820 inhabitants, then the ethnic minority population under the management of Shizhou wei ought to be 138,000. According to the “Records of Geography” and “Military Book” of The Ming History, there were 3 tuzhou (local prefecture) and 6 zhangguansi under the jurisdiction of Yongshun Military and Civic xuanweisi, and 2 zhangguansi under the jurisdiction of Baojing Military and Civic xuanweisi. If the population of each tuzhou amounted to that of 1 zhangguansi, then the population of Yongshun and Baojing could have been as high as 35,000 and 8,000, respectively. In 1391, in the neighboring area of the west of Changde fu, Shizhou, and Yongshun, there were two wei—Jiuxi and Yongding—and 4 thousandhousehold suo including Dayong, one of which has been set up as a wei in 1376 (Hongwu 9th year) and changed into a suo in 1398 (Hongwu 31st year). Sangzhi anfusi, under the management of wei, governed 2 zhangguansi. Based on the calculation in the above example, the population of ethnic minorities governed by Sangzhi anfusi was probably 8000 inhabitants. In Table 1, these ethnic minorities are included in the military household population. The total ethnic minority population in the above four regions of western Hunan was about 192,000. Together with the 196,000 inhabitants in the eastern

The Military Population and the Population

95

part of Guizhou, the total ethnic minority population in the eastern part of Guizhou, western Hunan, and southwestern Hubei was 388,000, exceeding the difference of 298,000 between the total population of Hubei and the provincial population in 1391. Such a gap is due to the error made in our estimation of the population of each zhangguansi in the western part of Hunan and the eastern part of Guizhou. 4.6 Guangdong According to the records in Vol. 41, Vol. 52, Vol. 150, and Vol. 162 of Ming Taizong Shilu, about 70,000 inhabitants from Qiongzhou and other regions in Guangdong province moved from the mountains and became registered residents from 1405 (Yongle 3rd year) to 1415 (Yongle 13th year). The number of non-submissive civilians in Qiongzhou during the Hongwu period may have reached 200,000. Similarly, according to the records of Ming Shishu, the “mountain people” in Xinyi county, Gaoyao county, Deqing sub-prefecture, and other places of Gaozhou prefecture went down from the mountains and transformed themselves into submissive registered civilians from 1406 (Yongle 4th year) to 1439 (Zhengtong 4th year); their total number reached 14,000. In fact, it is impossible to naturalize all the Yao people of Gaozhou, Zhaoqing, and other sub-prefectures. According to Vol. 167 of The Record of Ming Yingzong Shilu, in the lunar month June of 1448 (Zhengtong 13th year), Liu Xin, JianchaYushi of the Qing army in Guangdong, mentioned that naturalized Yao people in Gaozhou and Zhaoqing, who were intimidated and induced by Yao bandits in Xinyi, attacked and robbed other people around. If we make a conservative estimate based on such a background, then there were at least 10,000 unregistered Yao households (about 50,000 Yao people) in the two prefectures of Gaozhou and Zhaoqing during the Hongwu period. In Appendix Table 1, it is perceptible that 200,000, 30,000, and 20,000 people were added respectively to the civic population of Qiongzhou, Zhaoqing, and Gaozhou. In mid-  and late-Ming Dynasty, there were also a significant number of unregistered “mountain people” in the mountainous areas of northern Huizhou and Chaozhou in Guangdong. There is no way to estimate their population because they were still uncivilized people outside the control of the government despite the fact that they were non-Yao people. 5

Tibet and Taiwan

It is quite difficult to estimate the exact population of Tibet. In fact, until modern times, there has never been a census or any survey resembling a census in Tibet. According to Ge Jianxiong (1991), based on figures from the Yuan and

96

Chapter 4

Qing Dynasties, the population of the Tibetan Plateau during the Ming period could not have exceeded 700,000 or 800,000.18 For his part, Wang Ke (1994) has a different view. He believed that the total population was 1.23 million in the Titan areas according to the census conducted there by Kublai Khan during the 13th century and, based on the census conducted during the Yongzheng and Qianlong periods of the Qing Dynasty, that the population was about 1.34 million. However, these figures did not include the Tibetan population outside Tibet.19 In this book, Ge Jianxiong (1991)’s version is adopted. According to a survey conducted by the Dutch in the mid-17th century, the population of Taiwanese aborigines inhabiting in the mountains of Dutch-ruled regions was about 40,000 to 60,000, but there were no statistics regarding the population of the areas out of the Dutch jurisdiction. It can be estimated that the aboriginal population of the whole Taiwan Island was about 100,000 at that time. If the population of the aborigines on the Taiwan Island had grown slowly or had had a zero growth from the second half of the 14th century to the middle of the 17th century, the population of Taiwan in 1393 (Hongwu 36th year) might also have been 100,000 or even less. 18 Ge, J. (1991). The Development History of China’s Population. Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Press. 19 Wang, K. (1994). A study of Tibetan population. In C. Fu (Ed.), The History of Lhasa (p. 153). Beijing: China Social Science Publishing House.

Chapter 5

The Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty 1

Research Methodology

This chapter identifies the patterns of population change in various regions from 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) to the mid-late Ming Dynasty drawing on the household data of the mid-late Ming Dynasty recorded in various local records and those of certain regions in 1491 (Hongzhi 4th year) and 1578 (Wanli 6th year) recorded in Daming Huidian. The methodology adopted in this chapter takes into account the following five principles: First, the population of a certain region in the mid-Ming Dynasty is generally larger than that of 1391 if nothing occurred to justify in alternate number. That means anomalous data ought to be excluded. Second, regions with similar social backgrounds and natural conditions have similar population growth. Therefore, the population growth rate of these regions reflects the regular growth rate pattern of other regions. Based on this assumption, we make reasonable estimations of the population growth rates in neighboring areas. Third, the population growth rates calculated according to reliable population data in the mid and late Ming Dynasty are mainly civilians, meaning the figures exclude the military wei population overflow. Therefore, the average annual growth rate from 1391 to 1580 (Wanli 8th year) can be calculated based on the entire population of civilians, military servicemen, and their dependents. Fourth, the population growth rate in the north during the Ming Dynasty was closely related to the population density in the early Ming Dynasty. The more sparsely populated an area was in the early Ming Dynasty, the faster was its population growth rate or vice versa. Such a pattern is applicable in the south, albeit with an abundance caution. Fifth, due to insufficient population data for most regions in the south during the Ming Dynasty, the population of the mid-late Ming Dynasty must be calculated based on the population growth rate from 1391 to the mid-Qing Dynasty. In other words, the hypothesized population growth rates should be tested in a unified administrative framework by matching the data of both the

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_006

98

Chapter 5

Ming and Qing dynasties. The rationale for this hypothesis can be found in my elaboration on Diagram 2 in Chapter 2. Considering the average annual population growth rate from 1493 (Hongwu 26th year) to 1580 to be identical to that from 1580 to 1630 (Chongzhen 3rd year), I worked out the population of each Fu in 1630. It should be pointed out that the adjustment of the population growth rates of some regions from 1580 to 1630 was due to the influence of the plague of the Wanli period. 2

Changes in the Military Population

In our re-examination of the regional population data, we must consider the change in the military personnel of a particular region. Therefore, it is not justifiable to adopt the standard practice of treating 5,600 people as one wei and supposing that each serviceman had two dependents. This is because from the early years of the Ming Dynasty, it was very common for the military wei to have insufficient personnel, so the population of servicemen was on the decrease. However, after the servicemen settled down, got married, and had children, each military household came to have five persons on average, and the military population tended to grow. In addition, a large number of people followed the servicemen to live near wei-suo due to various reasons, thereby becoming “sheren” (housemen) and “jiayu” (family supporters). In a special way, they were considered a part of the military population. According to “Military Records,” Vol. 90 of The History of the Ming Dynasty, the dusi and wei-suo systems were established nationwide in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year). By then, there were 329 internal, and external wei and 65 imperial thousand-household suo where there were 1,915,000 servicemen, and the total population of servicemen and their dependents was about 5,746,000. The military population in Table 1 of the Appendix is larger than the above number because it includes the military population under the administrative jurisdiction. After the mid-Ming period, there was a general shortage of military personnel in wei-suo. During the Zhengde period (1506–1521), the Flag Army in wei-suo had 896,000 soldiers1 nationwide, accounting for 46.8% of the Flag Army quota set in 1393. The loss of soldiers did not only include those who had died on the battlefields along the northern borderline but also the decreasing

1 Zhang, J. (2005). A Study on Wei-suo and Military Household in the Ming Dynasty. Beijing: Thread-Binding Books Publishing House.

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

99

servicemen in different wei-suo. According to Gao Shouxian,2 the number of soldiers per wei in Beijing was 3,296, accounting for 58.9% of the soldier quota set during the Hongwu period. The case of Hainan wei in Qiongzhou fu, however, appears extreme. According to “Military Defense,” Vol. 7 of Records of Qiongzhou Fu compiled during the Wanli period, 11 internal and external suo were set up in Hainan wei with 15,926 as the quota of the Flag Army. However, as a matter of fact, there were only 2,882 Flag Army soldiers during the Wanli period, accounting for 18.1% of its quota set during the early years of the Ming Dynasty. Therefore, in the absence of a specific number of military wei in each region, I estimate that the military population of all military wei in 1580 accounted for 45% of the quota set during the Hongwu period; every household had five persons, and the military population of each wei was about 12,000. In 1501 (Hongzhi 14th year), the Ministry of War found that there were 880,000 additional “sheren” in all wei-su. This means there was at least one additional “sheren” per household. Zhang Jinkui (2007) considers this figure inadequate and cites more sources to support his findings. That notwithstanding, the population of each military wei was up to 170,000 in 1580 even if I suppose every household had two additional “sheren.” This means the military population under the household registration system was essentially stable from 1393 to 1580. In Table 1 of the Appendix, the military population was calculated according to the above inferences. The transfer, establishment, and cancellation of wei-suo will be discussed separately. Zhang Jinkui (2007) elaborates on the relationship between the military households and prefectures and counties where they were stationed. If there were many military households in a wei-suo, they were included in the household register of the local prefectures and counties. If a military household had land property there, some family members could be temporarily registered as part of the local population. The surplus military population was under the administrative jurisdiction of other prefectures and counties.3 This way, the population of those prefectures and counties with more wei-suo generally grew faster than other areas due to the overflow effect of the military population in wei-suo. In Liaodong, Shanxi xingdusi, other areas with a predominantly military population, and those whose population data was not available, the average

2 Gao, S. (2014). The Population History of Beijing. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. 3 Zhang, J. (2005). A Study on Wei-suo and Military Household in the Ming Dynasty. Beijing: Thread-Binding Books Publishing House.

100

Chapter 5

annual population growth rates I use for my estimation includes both military and civilian populations. 3

Population Growth in the North

3.1 Henan To fully understand the population change in the Ming Dynasty, it is very important to analyze regions individually rather than treat them as a whole. Due to the absence of standard population statistics about the south after the Hongwu period, this section mainly focuses on the population growth in the north. According to Vol. 11 of A General Record of Henan compiled during the Kangxi period, the total population of Henan was 2.57 million in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), 2.69 million in 1412 (Yongle 10th year), 4.77 million in 1482 (Chenghua 18th year), 5.12 million in 1521 (Zhengde 16th year), and 5.02 million in 1552 (Jiajing 31st year). However, after the Zhengde period, the number of registered households in Henan began to decline. Although it did increase during the Jiajing period, it was generally on the decrease compared to the figures during the Chenghua period. Unfortunately, these statistics are inconsistent with the actual population change. Therefore, Ping-ti Ho’s comparison of the population in the Jiajing period with that of the Hongwu period seemed inappropriate. The population of each Henan fu in specific years of the Hongwu, Yongle, Chenghua and Jiajing periods is listed in Table 8 as follows: Table 8

Population of Henan Fu during the Ming Dynasty. Population counting unit: 1000 people

Fu

Kaifeng Henan Zhangde Weihui Huaiqing Subtotal Nanyang Runing

1391 Original

Revision

1,183 529 132 101 197 2,142 117 183

1,277 570 132 109 205 2,293 134 210

1412

Total

1482

Female

1552

714 272 122 80 154 1,342 93 176

2,039 781 341 196 422 3,779 388 529

Male 1,134 524 144 162 280 2,244 110 209

2,047 738 320 203 435 3,743 322 447

1,332 466 207 122 281 2,408 229 272

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty Table 8

Population of Henan Fu during the Ming Dynasty (cont.)

Fu

Subtotal Ruzhou Total

101

1391 Original

Revision

300 129 2,571

344 140 2,777

1412

Total

1482

Female

1552

501

269

2,909

1,611

917 338 5,034

Male 319 131 2,694

769 253 4,765

Note: The population of Kaifeng in 1552 included the population of Guide fu, which had already been separated from Kaifeng. Due to the unavailability of space, this table only shows the population in a specific year. In 1391, Ruzhou was indeed under the administrative jurisdiction of Nanyang fu. Source: Vol. 3–11 of The General Records of Henan compiled in the Chenghua period, and Vol. 11 of The General Records of Henan compiled in the Kangxi period

According to Table 8, the average household size in Henan in 1412 was 7.4 persons, while in 1482, it was 8.9 persons. This indicates an increase from the average household size of 6.9 persons in 1391. After the Hongwu period, there was a major omission in the statistics of Henan population resulting in a lower household number and an omission of population figures. The male and female population of Ruzhou in 1482 was unclear, while the gender ratio in the remaining seven fu was 181. Besides, the female population was seriously underestimated. If I take 110 as the standard gender ratio, then the population of Henan in 1482 was 5.86 million. Equally, the average number of persons per household in Henan buzhengsi during the Hongwu period was 6.9. Based on this calculation, we estimate that the gender ratio was 130 and the actual population of Henan in 1391 was 2.77 million, and its annual growth rate in 1482 was 8.3‰. The population figures of Henan in 1482 were obtained following a census conducted in the whole province. The census was a response to the Ming official Yuan Jie’s decision to investigate and rearrange liumin (displaced people).4 That means the massive investigation of the liumin population was conducted at the same time as or earlier than the provincial census. Unlike in the past, the enumeration of women was largely neglected during the process.

4 Cao, S. (1997). The Ming Period. In The Emigration History of China (Vol. 5) (pp. 376–401). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Press.

102

Chapter 5

3.1.1 Kaifeng Fu The figures indicating that the population of Kaifeng fu in 1412 was less than the population in 1391 were unreasonable. If not for the wars and great famine, any reduction in the registered population could be interpreted as the result of an unreliable census or a statistical system error. With the exclusion of the figures of the Yongle period, the average annual population growth rate of Kaifeng fu from 1391 to 1482 was 6‰. If I consider 110 as the standard gender ratio, then the population of Kaifeng fu in 1482 was 2.53 million with an average annual growth rate, at the same period, of about 7.9‰. Such a high population growth rate may have included registered liumin. The issue of liumin in Kaifeng fu during the mid-Ming Dynasty mainly occurred in the southeastern area of Chenzhou. liumin, regarded as displaced people because they were not included in the local household registration for a long time, were mostly descendants of those who had moved to Kaifeng during the Hongwu period. The population growth rate of Kaifeng after 1482 was similar to that of Henan fu. If I consider 6‰ as a standard growth rate, then the civilian population of Kaifeng in 1580 (Wanli 8th year) was 4,547,000. The additional 88,000 stable military population brought the total population of 4,635,000. Based on the total population of Kaifeng, we deduce that its average annual population growth rate from 1391 to 1580 was 6.4‰. 3.1.2 Henan Province Henan Province was not taken into consideration in the rearrangement of liumin during the Chenghua period. Therefore, the registered population of Henan Province during the Chenghua period was low, with an average annual growth rate of 3.7‰ that had remained the same from the Hongwu period. Given that the gender ratio of Henan’s population was as high as 171 in the Chenghua period, I have adjusted it to 110, which has brought the total population to 890,000. That means the average population growth rate of Henan was 5.3‰ from 1391 to 1580. According to A General Record of Henan compiled during the Kangxi period, the population of Henan province in 1521 was 934,000, while the average annual growth rate of its registered population from 1580 to this time was 6‰. The significant reduction in the population up to the Jiajing period cast doubts on the validity of the total population figures. Therefore, assuming that the average annual growth rate was 6‰, the civilian population of Henan fu from 1521 to 1580 was 1,329,000 or 1,379,000 if we include the military population. 3.1.3 Zhangde Fu During the Yongle period, the population of Zhangde fu exceeded the population figures during the Hongwu period. From 1391 to 1412, its average annual

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

103

population growth rate was 4.2‰, and from 1412 to 1580, the average annual growth rate rose to 11.5‰. It is difficult to understand why the population of Zhangde increased so quickly while Zhangde was neither an emigrant destination in Yongle nor an area with more liumin during the mid-Ming period. There are two possibilities for this scenario: the population figures in 1391 might have been significantly low, or the population figures in 1580 might have been significantly high. The number of li during the Tianshun period can be used to test the above figures. According to Table 1 of the Appendix, the population of Zhangde fu in 1391 accounts for 5% of the provincial population, while the number of li in the Tianshun period accounts for 10%. Because of this mismatch, there is a need to adjust the household numbers of the Hongwu period. Like Henan fu, Zhangde fu did not witness any migration during the mid-Ming Dynasty; therefore, its population grew at the same rate as the population of Henan fu. If I consider 5.3‰ as the standard growth rate, the population of Zhangde fu would be 395,000—a figure which includes the female population omitted in 1482. This also means the population of Zhangde fu was 244,000 in 1391. Based on the same growth rate, the civilian population of Zhangde fu in 1580 would be 663,000, and its total population would be 676,000. 3.1.4 Weihui Fu The population of Weihui fu in 1412 was 1.6 times the population in 1391, and the average annual growth rate of the registered population was as high as 23‰. From the Yongle period to the Chenghua period, however, its average annual growth rate fell sharply to 3.2‰—a fall that leads to suspicion the figures during the Yongle period were an overestimation. However, the population of Weihui fu in 1391 accounted for 4% of the provincial population, while the number of li in the reign of Tianshun accounted for 8% of the provincial li. This suggests the population during the Hongwu period was unestimated. In the case of Zhangde fu, considering the average annual growth rate was 5.3‰, then a regression calculation would put the population of Weihui fu in 1391 at approximately 144,000. If I use the same growth rate for estimation, then the civilian population of Weihui fu in 1580 was 391,000, and its total population, 404,000. 3.1.5 Huaiqing Fu Like in Weihui fu, the population of Huaiqing fu in 1412 was surprisingly high. From 1391 to 1412, and then to 1482, the average annual population growth rate was 17‰ and 6.3‰ respectively. It is my belief that while the population of Huaiqing fu in 1412 may be accurate, the population in 1391 may be underestimation. This is because the population of Huaiqing fu in 1391 accounted for 8% of the provincial population, while the number of li during the reign

104

Chapter 5

of Tianshun accounted for 11.3% of the provincial li. Assuming the average annual growth rate was 6.3‰, a regression calculation based on the data in 1412 would mean the population of Huaiqing fu was 245,000 in 1391. If the same assumption holds and the female population, which was omitted in in 1842, is included, then the civilian population of Huaiqing fu was about 993,000 in 1580, and its total population was 1.01 million. 3.1.6 Nanyang Fu and Runing Fu We choose not to discuss the population of these two fu, given that it was less during the Yongle period than during the Hongwu period. From the Hongwu period to 1482, the population of Nanyang fu increased to 322,000, and the average annual growth rate was as high as 11.3‰. The most surprising element, however, was the gender ratio of the population during the Chenghua period; there were only 90,000 women in a population of 320,000, meaning the gender ratio was extremely high at 246. If adjusted according to the standard 110 gender ratio, the population of Nanyang fu in 1482 would be 437,000. From 1291 to 1412, the average annual growth rate of the registered population of Runing fu was 6.2‰, while its average annual growth rate from 1412 to 1482 was as high as 11‰. Such growth rate is the same as that of Nanyang fu during the same period, therefore, it should not be viewed as a coincidence. Similarly, the population of Runing fu in 1482 would be 519,000 based on my calculation on the standard gender ratio ratio of 110. Informed by these calculations, we assume the population of both Nanyang and Runing fu was 956,000. Some may think it reasonable that the gender ratio is high in emigrant areas hence it is unnecessary to adjust the population data. However, Nanyang fu was the main resettlement area of liumin (floating population) during the Chenghua period. The total liumin population of both Nanyang and Runing fu was 60,384 in 1476 (Chenghua 12th year).5 The majority of these liumin included in the household registration were migrants from the Hongwu and Yongle periods. Their gender ratio was generally stable as they had settled there for years, then got married and had children. It was the migrants who arrived in the mid-Ming Dynasty that were, for the most part, single. However, according to my knowledge of liumin rearrangement, those who had settled for a short time and who had not acquired any land or tomb were generally not given citizenship. If I subtract 302,000 emigrants from the total population of Nanyang and Runing fu, say 956,000 in 1482, the remaining population would be 654,000.

5 Cao, S. (1997). The Ming Period. In The Emigration History of China (Vol. 5) (p. 387). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Press.

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

105

Therefore, the average annual growth rate would be 7.1‰ given the population from 1391 to 1580 was 344,000 inhabitants. Ruzhou, however, is not included in this calculation. If I calculate based on a 7.1‰ average annual growth rate, then the civilian population of Nanyang fu and Runing fu would be 874,000 and 1,038,000, respectively, from 1482 to 1580. 3.1.7 Ruzhou From 1391 to 1482, the average annual growth rate of the registered population of Ruzhou was 7.4‰. According to A General Record of Henan compiled during the Kangxi period, the population of Ruzhou was 300,000 in 1502, and its average annual growth rate from 1482 to 1502 (Hongzhi 15th year) was 8.6‰. However, the average annual growth rate of the registered population from the Hongzhi period to the Jiajing period was only 2.3‰, a result of statistical deviation during the Jiajing period. If I based my estimation on the average annual growth rate of 8.6‰, then the population of Ruzhou in 1580 would be at approximately 585,000. It should be noted that the population of Ruzhou is included in the data of Nanyang fu in Table 1 of the Appendix. According to Vol. 1 of Recordsof Ruzhou compiled during the Zhengde period, the local population of liumin was large. In 1475 and 1476, Yiyang County and Baofeng County were set up under Ruzhou under a liumin rearrangement framework. In 1393, the civilian and military population of Henan Province was 3,283,000, and in 1580, it was 10,667,000. That means over 187 years, the average annual population growth rate was 6.3‰. 3.2 Shandong The household data at several time points of the Ming Dynasty can be found in the “Household Population,” Vol. 8 of The General Records of Shangdong. From 1391 to 1492 (Hongzhi 5th year), the average annual population growth rate of Shandong was only 2.6‰, and it reached 6‰ from 1492 to 1512 (Zhengde 7th year). The average population growth rate was similar to that of Beiping and Henan during the same period. The low population growth rate over the century after 1391 was due to the massive decline in the population of Dengzhou fu and Laizhou fu. 3.2.1 Dengzhou Fu and Laizhou Fu The population of Dengzhou fu in 1391 was 805,000, whereas in 1526 (Jiajing 5th year), it was only 447,000—a reduction of nearly half. The population of Laizhou fu was 760,000 in 1391 and increased to 881,000 in 1526, with an average annual growth rate of 1.1‰.

106

Chapter 5

Generally speaking, the household population data during the Jiajing period were unreliable. However, according to related records about the mid-Ming Dynasty, land abandonment and population outflow in Dengzhou and Laizhou were severe during the Hongzhi period. According to the description of He Tang, a senior official and renowned politician, “these areas, that stretched as far as one could see, were full of barren fields and were, thus, sparsely populated.” Wang Shizhen also said that “over dozens of li, the places were uninhabited and even not attractive for the Japanese pirates.”6 Their descriptions justify the lower household data of Dengzhou fu in 1526, making it difficult to deny the accuracy. In my previous studies, I accepted the household number of Dengzhou in 1526; however, in my comparison of the household data of both Dengzhou fu and Laizhou fu during the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty, when their population growth rates were really low, then their population growth during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties seemed surprisingly high. Let’s take Dengzhou fu as an example; if it had an average annual population growth rate of 2‰ from 1393 to 1630, then the average annual population growth rate would be as high as 15.2‰ from 1631 to 1680, meaning the 1526 data is unrealistic. In 1393, two wei were set up in Dengzhou fu; one wei and two suo were set up in Laizhou fu. In 1398 (Hongwu 31st year), four wei and one suo was set up in Dengzhou fu, and four more suo were set up in the Chenghua period. In 1398, one wei was set up in Laizhou fu, to which were added two suo in the Hongzhi period. Based on my estimation principle outlined in the previous section, the military population of Dengzhou fu increased from 37,000 in 1393 to 88,000 in 1580, while the military population of Laizhou fu increased from 20,000 in 1393 to 28,000 in 1580. We utilize 3‰ as the average annual growth rate of the civilian population from 1391 to 1580 to 1630, then add the military population. The population of Dengzhou fu in 1580 was 1,588,000. In 1820, the population of Dengzhou fu was 3,415,000, with an average annual growth rate of 3.2‰ from 1580 to 1820. Supposing the population of Laizhou fu grew at the same rate as that of Dengzhou fu, then the population of Laizhou fu was 1,561,000 in 1580 and 3,374,000 in 1820. Its average annual growth rate was 3.4‰ from 1580 to 1820.

6 Wang, S. (n.d.). Yi Fangwo Shangchuan Zhongchen (Suggestions submitted to Zhongchen on Combatting Japanese Pirates). In Ming Jingshi Wenbian (Vol. 332).

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

107

3.2.2 Qingzhou Fu According to Vol. 7 of Records of Qingzhou Fu compiled in the Jiajing period, the population of Qingzhou fu was 1,690,000 in 1391 and 1,528,000 in 1552. The decrease indicates that the data was inaccurate. According to the “Military Book” of The History of the Ming Dynasty, there were four wei and one suo in Qingzhou during the reign of Hongwu. According to Vol. 11 of Records of Qingzhou Fu compiled during the Jiangjing period, in addition to Andong wei in the coastal Rizhao County and Zhucheng suo in Zhucheng, two of the other three remaining wei remained were later moved to Dezhou during the Yongle period—a demonstration that the coastal defense was more important in the eastern regions. However, the population reduction caused by the invasion of the Japanese pirates became less in the western regions. The loss of population in Qingzhou during the early and mid-Ming Dynasty may have been caused by natural disasters. According to Vol. 188 of Ming-taizu Shilu, in the first lunar month of 1388 (Hongwu 21st year), drought and locusts caused starvation in 215,000 households, and the household number that obtained relief was the same as in the Hongwu period. In the mid-Ming Dynasty, people in Qingzhou fu continued to flee, and according to Ming-yingzong Shilu, in April of the lunar calendar of 1447 (Zhengtong 12th year), 13,000 households fled from Zhucheng county, where they had to survive by eating grass seeds and barks of trees. If I take Laizhou fu as an example and employ 3‰ as the average annual population growth rate of Qingzhou fu from 1391 to 1580, the population of Qingzhou fu, excluding one military wei transferred to Tianjin, would be 3,337,000. 3.2.3 Dongchang Fu According to the “Household Population,” Vol. 8 of Records of Dongchang Fu compiled during the Xiafeng period—itself a citation from the records compiled during the Wanli period, the household population of Liaocheng County in 1391 was mistakenly listed as the household population of Dongchang fu. Accordingly, there were 424,000 inhabitants in Dongchang fu during the Tianshun period and 579,000 during the Zhengde era (1506–1521). Dongchang fu reached 200,000,7 and its average annual population growth rate was 11.6‰ and 5.8‰, respectively, during the Tianshun and Zhengde periods. The population growth from the Hongwu period to the Tianshun period 7 Cao, S. (1997). The Ming Period. In The Emigration History of China (Vol. 5) (p. 166). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Press.

108

Chapter 5

was related to the rapid urban expansion of Linqing. Given that the city was one of the five major transport wharfs along the canal, it appears reasonable for it to have a population of 100,000 during the Tianshun period. Despite the urban growth of Linqing, the population of Dongchang fu grew at an average annual rate of about 6‰. During the late Ming Dynasty, the average annual growth rate of Dongchang fu was 5.8‰, and its population was 831,000 in 1580. 3.2.4 Yanzhou Fu The population of Yanzhou fu was about 920,000 in 1391, and it increased to 1,702,000 in 1526. Over the 135 years, its population grew at an average annual rate of 4.5‰—a slightly lower rate than in northern China during the same period. That means at this rate, the population of Yanzhou fu was about 2,466,000 in 1580. 3.2.5 Jinan Fu The registered population of Jinan fu increased from 970,000 in 1391 to 2,103,000 in 1526 (Jiajing 5th year), with an average annual growth rate of 5.7‰. This figure was the same as the average annual growth rate for most regions of northern China. The civilian and military population of Shandong Province was 6,039,000 in 1393 and 13,066,000 in 1580. Over the 187 years, the average annual growth rate was 4.2‰. 3.3 Beiping In this section, the population during the Hongwu period is, once again, used as the reference point. However, Beiping buzhengsi was renamed Jingshi, and Beiping City became Beijing after the capital city of the Ming Dynasty was moved during the Yongle period. For the sake of convenience, I use Beiping buzhengsi, though I occasionally adopt its new names, including Shuntian fu and Beijing city. In this section, the data of 1491 (Hongzhi 4th year) and 1578 (Wanli 6th year) are cited from Daming Huidian compiled during the Wanli period and equally available in “The Book of Geography,” Vol. 40 of The History of The Ming Dynasty. It should be noted that no further mention of this information is made in the following paragraphs. 3.3.1 Beiping (Shuntian) Fu The population of Shuntian fu during the Ming Dynasty consisted of the civilian and military populations. The military population was composed of two parts, the population of the military wei whose headquarters were in Shuntian

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

109

fu and that of the military wei with headquarters in Beijing city. After the capital was moved during the Yongle period, there were 15 military wei stationed in Shuntian fu. In 1435 (Xuande 10th year), there were 72 military wei in Beijing, with a quota of 403,000 soldiers. According to Gao Shouxian (2014), many wei transferred to Beiping were actually relocated, and led to a serious shortage of soldiers; the actual number of soldiers per wei was 3,296.8 Then the total number of soldiers was only 254,000, and the military population was 761,000 which even included soldiers’ family members. One third of the population, i.e., about 254,000 inhabitants, were stationed in Shuntian fu. If I re-estimate based on the standard 3,500 soldiers per wei, the actual number of soldiers stationed in Shuntian fu was only 158,000. The total number of soldiers and their families in the Shuntian fu but outside of Beijing City was approximately 412,000. It should be noted that the transfer of military wei from Nanjing to Beijing was not considered relocation. According to Gao Shouxian’s research, the military wei population in the Shuntian fu remained at around 250,000 inhabitants until 1629 (Chongzhen 2nd year). However, by 1491, the family size of the military population was close to normal. If there were five persons per household, then the population was up to 1.25 million,9 meaning from 1412 to this time, the average annual growth rate of the military population was also 6.5‰. In 1580, the military population of Shuntian fu remained constant at 1.25 million and the overflow population was counted as part of the civilian population. According to Vol. 3 of Records of Shuntian Fu and Daming Huidian compiled during the Wanli period, the civilian population of Shundian fu in 1391, 1412, and 1491 was 345,000, 260,000, and 669,000, respectively. The dramatic population reduction in 1412 was due to the Jingnan war.10 From 1412 to 1491, the average annual growth rate of the civilian population of Shuntian fu was 12‰. In contrast, from 1391 to 1491, the average annual growth rate of the civilian population was 6.6‰, almost the same as the growth rate of its military population. Using this population growth rate as the standard for further estimation would mean the civilian population of Shuntian fu, in 1580, was approximately 1,201,000. Accordingly, up until 1580, the military and civilian population of Shuntian fu totaled 2,451,000. With an additional one million people in the city of 8 Gao, S. (2014). The Population History of Beijing. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. 9 Gao, S. (2014). The Population History of Beijing. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. 10 Translator note: “Jingnan” means “dispel a disaster or appease an uprising.” Lasting for three years from 1399 to 1402, the war was waged by Zhudi, the fourth son of Ming-taizu, against his nephew Emperor Janwen.

110

Chapter 5

Beijing, its total population reached 3,451,000. The estimated urban population of Beijing can also be found in other sections of the book. 3.3.2 Yongping Fu In Chapter 3 of this book, the estimated civilian population of Yongping fu in 1391 was about 76,000, and its military population was 34,000. After the Jingnan war, the population of Yongping fu significantly depleted, causing the government to initiate migration. According to Vol. 1 of Records of Yongping Fu compiled during the Hongzhi period, there were 190 lishe (villages) in the six prefectures and counties of Yongping fu; the civilian tun (villages) accounted for approximately 35% of all lishe. If every li had 110 households and 130 households for the local indigenous population, the total households of migrants and the local population were 24,000 families, and their population was 117,000. We suppose this is the data for 1412 (Yongle 10th year). In 1491 (Hongzhi 4th year), the population of Yongping fu was 229,000; in 1578 (Wanli 6th year) it was 256,000. From 1412 to 1481 and then to 1578, the average annual growth rate of Yongping fu was 9.3‰ and 1.3‰, respectively. The rapid population growth before 1491 was related to the recession of the northern borderline after the Yongle period. After the retreat of Daining Dusi to the southward defense fortress during the Yongle period, Yongping fu became an important borderline for the Ming regime against the Mongolian forces outside its territory. The influx of servicemen and the change in the household registration of additional military sheren could have significantly increased the population of Yongping fu. The low population growth of Yongping fu after 1491 was the result of distorted or inaccurate household data during the Wanli period. Suppose I base my further estimation on the average annual growth rate of the civil population of Baoding Fu, i.e., 5.1‰, then the population of Yongping fu in 1580 was approximately 360,000. In Yongping fu, Yongping wei and Shanhai wei were set up during the Hongwu period, and three additional wei were set up during the Yongle period. Their total military population was 84,000. In 1580, the total population of Yongping fu was 444,000. 3.3.3 Baoding Fu According to the “Household Population,” Vol. 6 of Records of Baoding Jun, the population of Baoding fu increased from 319,000 to 351,000 from 1377 to 1391, with an average annual growth rate of 6.9‰. Up until 1412, its population was 382,000, with an average annual growth rate of 4‰. In 1491, its population was 582,000 and the average annual growth rate from 1391 to this time was 5.1‰. Therefore, based on this rate, the population of Baoding fu was 915,000 in 1580.

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

111

During the Yongle period, Baoding fu took over Daning dusi, which retreated southward from the northern defense fortress and set up four new wei in Baoding. No wei-suo was transferred from Daning dusi to Baoding fu. The four new wei, however, could not recruit people from the civilian population of Baoding fu; rather, they had to reorganize the population of Daning dusi that had been cancelled. Therefore, the new population of these four wei could be treated as migrants with a population of approximately 67,000. If its average annual growth rate was 5.1‰ from 1410 to 1580, the descendants of these migrants could have reached 159,000 people, meaning both the migrant population and the local population was 1,074,000. The average annual population growth rate of Baoding fu from 1393 to 1580 was 5.6‰. 3.3.4 Hejian Fu In 1491, the civilian population of Hejian fu was 379,000. Therefore, considering Daming fu as an example, the average annual population growth rate in the late Ming Dynasty was 6.5‰, and its civilian population in 1580 was 675,000. During the Yongle period, there were four wei in Tianjin, and its military population was 67,000. From 1410 (Yongle 8th year) to 1580, the descendants of the military population totaled 202,000 inhabitants. The total population of Hejian fu was 877,000, and the population of the Tianjin city in the late Ming Dynasty was about 100,000. That means the total population of Hejian fu was 977,000 in 1580. 3.3.5 Zhending Fu In Chapter 3 of this book, I have proved that the population of Zhending fu in 1391 was about 700,000. During the Jingnan war, a large number of people in the eastern area of Zhending fu died, and the mortality rate accounted for 60% of the total fu population. After the war, the population of Zhending was replenished by migrants, who only accounted for about 35% of the post-war total population. The population of Zhending fu in 1412 was, therefore, thought to have been about 430,000.11 In 1491, the population of Zhending fu was 598,000, and its average annual growth rate from 1412 to 1491 was about 4.2‰. In 1578 (Wanli 6th year), the population of Zhending fu increased to 1,094,000, and its annual population growth rate, from 1491 to this time, was 7‰.

11 Cao, S. (1997). The Ming Period. In The Emigration History of China (Vol. 5) (p. 356). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Press.

112

Chapter 5

3.3.6 Shunde Fu In Chapter 3 of this book, I have proved that the civilian population of Shunde fu was about 150,000 in 1391. The Jingnan war saw a significant loss of population in Shunde fu. Therefore, based on the 60% population loss, I can estimate the population of the entire fu was only 60,000 in 1412. After the war, the government organized a massive migration, and in 1491, the population of Shunde fu was 182,000, and its average annual population growth rate from 1412 to this time was 5.3‰, similar to that of Baoding fu. Up until 1578, the population of Shunde fu increased to 282,000, and its average annual growth rate, from 1491 to this time, remained at 5‰. We can, therefore, conclude that the population statistics of Shunde fu in 1578 are fairly accurate. 3.3.7 Daming Fu In Chapter 3 of this book, I calculated the population of Daming fu to be 300,00 inhabitants based on the population of neighboring regions and by converting the number of li during the Hongwu period. After the Jingnan war when Hongwu period migrants were dispelled or moved away, a kind of re-migration occurred. In 1491, the population of Daiming fu was 575,000, and its average annual population growth rate, from 1391 to this time, was 6.5‰. Generally speaking, after the Hongwu period, the number of li no longer correlated with the actual population. However, for Daming fu, the number of li grew from 318 in 1391 to 579 in 1502, meaning the annual growth rate was 5.4‰—approximately the average annual population growth rate of Daming fu. At this rate, the civilian population of Daming fu, from 1491 to 1578, was 929,000. 3.3.8 Guangping Fu The registered population of Guangping fu in 1491 was 213,000. According to Vol. 6 of Records of Guangping Fu compiled during the Jiajing period, Guangping fu had a population of 195,000 in the Chenghua period. Supposing the figure represented the population in 1476, that would mean the average annual population growth rate from 1476 to 1491 was 5.9‰. Accordingly, the population of Guangping fu in 1580 was 360,000. 3.3.9 Yanqing and Bao’an Prefectures Before 1567 (Lonqing 1st year), Yanqing Prefecture was called Longqing prefecture. Yanqing prefecture and Bao’an prefectures were established due to the Yongle period immigration. In 1578, Yanqing Prefecture had 2,755 households and 19,267 inhabitants; Bao’an prefecture had 772 households and 6,445 inhabitants that have not been accounted for in Table 1 of the Appendix.

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

113

In general, the total civilian and military population of Beiping province was 2,937,000 in 1393 and 8,611,000 in 1580, and the average annual population growth rate, over the 187 years, was 5.8‰. 3.4 Shaanxi and Shanxi According to Daming Huidian compiled during the Wanli period, the average annual population growth rate in Shaanxi was 5.4‰ from 1391 to 1491—a growth rate identical to that in the north. From 1491 to 1578, the average annual population growth rate in Shaanxi fell to 1.6‰. Therefore, the for 1578 is not quite accurate. Like Nanyang fu and Runing fu in Henan province, Hanzhong fu was also the area receiving migrants in the early Ming Dynasty. Therefore, I suppose that its population growth rate was lower than that of Nanyang and Runing during the early Ming Dynasty but higher than that of these two fu during the mid-Ming Dynasty. It had the same population growth rate as that of Ruzhou, say 8.2‰. In the late Ming Dynasty, Xi’an, Fengxiang, and other fu were hit by earthquakes. According to Vol. 430 of Ming-shizong Shilu, earthquakes occurred in Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Henan on Jan. 23, 1556 (Jiajing 34th year), incidents during which “over 830,000 officials, servicemen, and civilians were reported to have died,” while the actual number of casualties might have been over one million people. The epicenter of the earthquakes was at the borderline of the three provinces. Xi’an fu incurred the most devastating losses given its population growth rate, at 4.5‰, was the lowest. On the other hand, the population growth rate of Fengxia fu was 5‰, and that of Yan’an fu and Qingyang fu was the same at 5.8‰. In fact, we do have full knowledge of the population growth rate of each fu in Shaanxi province during the Ming Dynasty, let alone that of its western fu. Interestingly, in the process of matching the provincial population of the Ming Dynasty with that of the Qing Dynasty, I found that the average annual population growth rate of Qingyang was 5.8‰ from 1393 to 1820, that of Pingliang fu and Gongchang fu was each 6.5‰, and that of Lintao fu was 8.1‰, an indication population growth rates increased steadily from east to west. If this was the population growth rate of each fu in Shaanxi province during the Ming Dynasty, I could work out the population of each fu in 1580. Please see Table 1 of the Appendix for more details. From 1393 to 1580, the average annual population growth rate of the entire Shaanxi province was 5.4‰. This phenomenon leads us to hypothesize that areas that did not experience the great drought, war, and plague of the late Ming Dynasty had a regional population growth rate in the Ming Dynasty that was inversely proportionate to the regional population density in the early Ming Dynasty. In other words,

114

Chapter 5

the higher the population density in the early Ming Dynasty, the lower the population growth rate in the Ming Dynasty, or vice versa. We will have the opportunity to test this hypothesis in the following sections. During the Hongwu and Yongle periods, Shanxi was the largest migrant area in northern China. However, Datong fu in northern Shanxi was not only where military wei were stationed but also the area for migrants. I suppose that the average annual growth rate of the civilian and military population of Datong fu was 6‰, that of the neighboring Taiyuan was 4‰, and that of other fu was 3.4‰—the same as that of the south from where the migrants came. In the case of Shaanxi and Shanxi, as well as other regions with similar general estimates, the civilian and military populations were combined. 3.5 Northern Jingshi (Southern Zhili) After the capital city was moved to Beiping during the Yongle period, Jingshi was renamed Southern Zhili, but the area under its jurisdiction remained unchanged. The household number of most fu and prefectures in Southern Zhili witnessed a gradual decline during the Ming Dynasty. Interestingly, only a few regions of Southern Zhili to the north of the Yangtze River did not experience such a decline. Their household census and statistical system were very sound. It should be noted that the household data of Jingshi area was obtained mostly from Daming Huidian, compiled during the Wanli period. 3.5.1 Xuzhou Fu The population of Xuzhou fu in 1391, 1412, and 1482 was 181,000, 354,000, and 346,000, respectively. From the Hongwu period to the Hongzhi period, the average annual population growth rate of Xuzhou fu was 6.9‰. In his description of the normal situation in Fengyang, Xuzhou, Dengzhou, and Laizhou, He Tang notes: “these regions were full of barren fields as far as one can see” and “they were sparsely populated due to long-time desolation.” His description is inconsistent with the on-record high population growth rate. Also, it does not account for the low population growth rate of Dengzhou fu and Laizhou fu. The average annual growth rate of the civilian population of Xuzhou from 1393 to 1578 can be set at 6.9‰. The total population of Xuzhou was 788,000 in 1578, and then the actual average annual growth rate of its total population was 6.6‰. According to Table 37, this calculation is consistent with the data of the Qing Dynasty. Similarly, the average annual population growth rate of Yangzhou fu and Huai’an fu at the same period can be set at 6‰. 3.5.2 Fengyang Fu The population of Fengyang fu was 427,000, 931,000, and 1,202,000 in 1391, 1412, and 1578, respectively, and the average annual growth rate during the two time

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

115

periods was 8.0‰ and 3.0‰. In 1391, there were eight wei and one suo under the jurisdiction of Zhongdu Liushousi (Central Capital Retention Division) of Fengyang fu, an area with a large military population. I had thought that the high growth rate of Fengyang fu before the Hongzhi period might have been related to the overflow of the military wei population because the population growth rate of 8‰ was too high to be true for any region. However, I learned later from the single case of Xuzhou that its population growth rate in the early Ming Dynasty might actually be the civilian population growth rate of the Ming Dynasty. Using this assumption as a basis for further calculation, we believe the total population of Fengyang fu in 1578 was 2,082,000, and its average annual growth rate was 6.5‰. 3.5.3 Chuzhou The population of Chuzhou increased from 27,000 in 1391 to 50,000 in 1491, with an average annual growth rate of 6.3‰ for the civilian population. This was a further indication of the rapid population growth in sparsely populated areas. Considering the average annual population growth rate of its population in the Ming Dynasty was 5‰, then its population in 1580 was 112,000. 3.5.4 Luzhou Fu The household number of Luzhou fu in 1391, 1491, and 1578 was 49,000, 37,000, and 47,000, respectively; meanwhile, the population was 367,000, 487,000, and 623,000, respectively. The household number of Luzhou fu did not increase over time, but its increase was quite systematic—it had balanced and steady average annual growth rates of 2.7‰ and 3‰. In previous studies, I used these two rates; unfortunately, the results of my calculation were inconsistent with the data of Qing Dynasty, where the average annual population growth rate from 1630 to 1680 was as high as 20‰. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate to use 5.6‰ as the average annual population growth rate. 3.5.5 Anqing Fu From 1393 to 1491, the population of Anqing fu increased from 423,000 to 617,000, with an average population growth rate of 3.7‰. According to Vol. 4 of Recordsof Zhili Anqing Jun compiled during the Tianshun period, the population of Anqing fu was 402,000 in 1391, and the average annual population growth rate was 4.1‰ in 1491. In previous studies, I used the average annual population growth rate of 4.1‰ to estimate the population from 1391 to 1580 and extrapolated this data to other fu in the Southern Zhili, which lack reliable household data. When I match this set of data with statistics of the Qing Dynasty and calculate based on the rate of 4.1‰, it seems unreasonable that the average annual population growth rate from 1630 to 1680 would be as high

116

Chapter 5

as 16‰. If I consider the population growth rate to be 6‰, the results are presented in Table 37 and Table 1 of the Appendix. 3.5.6 Hezhou Although Hezhou was located in the north of the Yangtze River, it is relatively densely populated due to its proximity to Nanjing. If I set the city’s average annual population growth rate at 4.4‰, which is slightly higher than that of other fu in the Jiangnan area, my calculation would be consistent with the data of the Qing Dynasty. 3.6 Summary Up to now, we have obtained the data on the average annual population growth rate of the 31 northern fu and prefectures12 during the Ming Dynasty. Some of these data came directly from documents, and others were estimated according to various documentary sources. With the inclusion of Nanchang fu, there are altogether 32 fu and prefectures as mentioned below. The result is that the Pearson correlation coefficient for the population density and the average

Diagram 3

Relationship between population density and average annual population growth rate for the 32 fu in the early Ming Dynasty

12 They included Beiping, Baoding, Zhending, Shunde, Guangping, Daming, Jinan, Dong­ chang, Yanzhou, Laizhou, Dengzhou, Xi’an, Fengxiang, Hanzhong, Pingliang, Gongchang, Lintao, Qingyang, Yan’an, Kaifeng, Henan, Huaiqing, Nanyang, Runing, Xuzhou, Huai’an, Yangzhou, Fengyang, Chuzhou, Luzhou, and Anqing.

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

117

annual population growth rate of these regions in the early Ming Dynasty is −0.545—a moderate negative correlation. In the regression equation, the coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.297), i.e., 29.7% of the variation (variance) in the average annual population growth rate, can be explained by population density. This shows that the correlation between the population density and population growth rate is not significantly strong. In the north, where the population density was relatively high, the average annual population growth rate was relatively low. See Diagram 3 for more details. 4

The Population Growth in the South

In the south, I estimate, albeit with caution, the average annual population growth rate of different regions using the method of regional comparison and matching my data with the population of the Qing Dynasty. 4.1 Southern Jingshi (Southern Zhili) One issue that needed to be resolved was to determine the population growth rate of the regions in the south of the Yangtze River under the jurisdiction of Southern Zhili in the mid and late Ming Dynasty? In the absence of any information, I consider the fifth principle explained at the beginning of this chapter and work out the average annual population growth rate of each fu in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) and 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). Based on my calculation, the population growth rates were 3.8‰ for Changzhou, 2.8‰ for Suzhou, 2.7‰ for Zhenjiang, 2.3‰ for Yingtian, and 1.8‰ for Songjiang. The low population growth rate was due to the fact that Jiangnan suffered major droughts, a massacre by Qing soldiers, and plagues in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. Therefore, it appears appropriate to set the average annual population growth rate of each Jiangnan fu in the Ming Dynasty at 3.8‰, i.e., the average annual population growth rate of Changzhou fu. The only exception to the Ming-Qing population data matching was Chizhou fu, whose average annual population growth rate during the Ming Dynasty is set at 6‰, the same as that of the neighboring Anqing fu to the north of the river. During the Hongwu period, 42 wei were stationed in Nanjing; 35 wei and one suo were transferred to Beijing during the Yongle period, i.e., a total of—a total of 591,000, including 197,000 soldiers. Although records showed that a limited number of soldiers who had been arranged to move to Beijing later remained in Nanjing, it is justifiable to consider that, in the long run, each soldier likely took three dependents to Beijing. That means six wei and four suo remained in Nanjing, comprising a military population of 114,000.

118

Chapter 5

To sum up, the civilian and military population of Jingshi in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) was 12,561,000, and in 1580 (Wanli 8th year), it was 29,474,000, and its average annual population growth rate was 4.6‰. 4.2 Fujian and Zhejiang 4.2.1 Tingzhou Fu The household number of each county in 1391, 1491 (Hongzhi 5th year), and 1522 (Jiajing 1st year) is recorded in the “Food and Money,” Vol. 4 of Records of Tingzhou Fu compiled during the Jiajing period. Its household number after 1391 declined year by year. It is not rare to see that the population registration was changed to “ding” registration and the population data of each county was inaccurate. However, Guihua and Yongding counties were newly established in Tingzhou fu during the Chenghua period (1465–1487). The household investigation conducted for the establishment of the new counties was similar to a census. Such a practice persisted until the Hongzhi period, thereby providing some evidence for our discussion of the population growth rate of this area. In 1471 (Chenghua 7th year), Qingliu and other counties were separated and became Guihua County. According to the “Food and money,” Vol. 4 of Records of Tingzhou Fu compiled during the Jiajing period, the household number of Guihua county in 1492 (Hongzhi 5th year) was 5,157, and its population was 32,152; the average number of family members per household was 6.2. In 1492, the household number increased to 5,588, while the population increased to 34,016 even though the average number of family members per household remained at 6.1. Meanwhile, the average annual growth rate of the household population in Guihua county was 4‰ and 2.8‰ over the 20 years. Guihua county was located in the far mountainous areas, and it was not established to relieve the population growth pressure; rather, its establishment was an administrative measure taken by the government to pacify the people of the area. Therefore, it appears appropriate to set the average annual population growth rate over the 20 years at 3‰ to 4‰. Yongding county is another case worth noting. According to the “Geography” of The History of the Ming Dynasty, Shanghang county was separated and renamed Yongding County in 1481 (Chenghua 17th year). According to the “Food and money,” Vol. 4 of Records of Tingzhou Fu compiled during the Jiajing period, the household number of Yongding County in 1482 (chenghua 18th year) was 2,256, and its population was 11,129, i.e., with 4.9 persons per household. In 1492, the household number increased to 2,427, and its population was 16,335, meaning there were 6.7 persons per household. Over the ten years, the average annual growth rate of households remained only at 0.7‰, while the

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

119

average annual growth rate of the population was 3.9‰. That makes the population growth rate of Yongding county similar to that of Guihua county. 4.2.2 Jianning Fu, Shaowu Fu, and Yanping Fu According to Vol. 212 of Ming-taizu Shilu, in May of the lunar calendar in 1439 (Yongle 17th year), the governor of Jian’an county, Jianning fu, reported that Jianning, Shaowu and Yanping had suffered several epidemics since 1408 (Yongle 5th year), and that more than 174,600 inhabitants had died. According to Vol. 52 of A General Record of Fujian compiled during the Daoguang period, Zhang Zhun of Jian’an county also reported in 1439 (Yongle 17th year) that Jianning and Yanping had suffered repeated epidemics since 1408 leading to the death of 774,600 inhabitants. According to Vol. 82 of Ming-taizu Shilu, Jianchang and Fuzhou in Jiangxi, Jianning, Shaowu, and other fu in Fujiang were hit by the epidemic in January of the lunar calendar in 1411 (Yongle 8th year), causing the death, between 1408 (Yongle 5th year) and 1409 (Yongle 6th year), of 78,400 inhabitants. According to Vol. 111 of the book, in December of the lunar calendar in 1411, the epidemic in Shaowu, Fujian Province “killed more than 12,000 families.” It maintained, in Vol. 136, that from 1408 to 1409, over 4,480 households died of epidemics in Guangze and Taining counties of Shaowu fu. Unfortunately, it appears impossible to obtain consistent data from various records. Therefore, I follow the fifth principle introduced at the beginning of this chapter to match the population of the Ming Dynasty with that of the Qing Dynasty to make the data justifiable. If the number of deaths in the three fu in 1419 (Yongle 17th year) amounted to 175,000, then the population of the Ming Dynasty can hardly be matched with that of the Qing Dynasty. If we suppose the number of deaths in the fu in 1420 (Yongle 18th year) was 775,000 and the deaths in each fu were calculated based on its population percentage, then it would be possible to work out the remaining population of each fu. Taking Shaowu fu as an example, if the average annual growth rate was 5.5%, then the population of Shaowu fu in 1408 was approximately 267,000. If we consider that 126,000 people died during the Yongle period epidemics, then its remaining population was 141,000. If the average annual growth rate was 5.5‰, that would mean its population from 1420 to 1580 was 339,000. Therefore, the average annual population growth rate of the Ming Dynasty in Jianning and Yanping fu was 3.4‰. 4.2.3 Fuzhou Fu, Quanzhou Fu and Zhangzhou Fu In order to match the data of the Qing Dynasty, the average annual population growth rate of the three fu in the Ming Dynasty is set at 5.5‰. See Table 1 of the Appendix for details of the population of each fu in Fujian province.

120

Chapter 5

4.3 Jiangxi According to the “Household Population,” Vol. 7 of Records of Nanchang Fu compiled during the Wanli period, the population of Nanchang fu rose to 2.5 million in 1572 (Longqing 6th year), with an average annual population growth rate of 4.5‰ from 1391. The population of Jing’an, Wuning, and Ningzhou counties was 141,000 in 1391, 255,000 in 1522 (Jiajing 1st year), and its average annual population growth rate was also 4.5‰. It is quite difficult to extrapolate from this data to determine the figures in other fu. Following the fifth principle mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, it is possible to determine that the average annual population growth rate from 1392 to 1776 (Qianong 11th year) was 6.2‰ in Jiujiang fu, 3.4‰ in Nankang fu, and 2.6‰ in Nanchang fu. In the early Ming Dynasty, Jiujiang fu received the largest number of migrants in Jiangxi province,13 and its population growth rate was similar to that of the Jingxiang region. Nanchang fu had a high death toll because it was besieged by Qing forces, while Nankang fu, because it experienced less war and migration, may represent the general situation of the north-central regions of Jiangxi province. Ganzhou fu and Nan’an fu had vast land but a sparse population. Therefore, it may be appropriate to set their population growth rate at 4‰. From 1580 to 1820, their average annual population growth rates were 6.5‰ and 6.4‰, respectively,—a result of the massive migration during the Qing Dynasty. 4.4 Huguang After comparing the household number of each province in 1472 (Chenghua 8th year) with that in 1391, I find that only the population of De’an fu, Huang­ zhou fu, and Yongzhou fu grew from 1391 to 1472. 4.4.1 De’an Fu According to Vol. 2 of Records of De’an Fu compiled during the Zhengde period, the population of De’an in 1391 was 60,000 and 77,021 in 1432 (Xuande 7th year), and the average annual population growth rate was 6.1‰. In the early Ming Dynasty, a large number of migrants moved into De’an causing an even faster population growth. However, this growth is considered low if we attempt to match the population data of the Ming to that of Qing dynasties. 4.4.2 Huangzhou Fu According to the “Official System: Household Population,” Vol. 3 of Records of Huangzhou Fu compiled during the Hongzhi period, there were 95,000 13 Cao, S. (2011). The Emigration in Waxieba: Legend or A Fact? Xueshujie, (9), 35–52.

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

121

households and 642,000 inhabitants in Huangzhou fu in 1391, and there were 6.8 persons on average per household. According to Vol. 4 of Huguang Tujing Zhishu, there were 78,000 households and 751,000 inhabitants in 1472 (Zhengde 7th year) and 74,000 households and 798,000 inhabitants in 1512, with an average number of 10.8 persons per household. The high average number of family members per household indicates the records of household population were inaccurate due to a significant omission of the female population during the Ming Dynasty. If the sex ratio was 200, then it should be corrected to 110, meaning the actual population was 10,820,000. If I use the civilian population of Huangzhou fu in 1391, say 740,000, as a standard figure, then the population growth rate was 3.1‰ from 1391 to 1471 and 3.2‰ from 1472 to 1513. Such growth rates were a little low if we attempted to match the population data of both the Ming to that of Qing dynasties. 4.4.3 Wuchang Fu According to Chapter 3 of the book, the population of Wuchang fu in 1391 was 300,000. According to Huguang Tujing Zhishu compiled during the Jiajing period, the population of Wuchang fu was about 405,000 in 1472 (Chenghua 8th year) and 474,000 in 1512—figures that amounted to the total population of all counties in Wuchang fu. The average annual population growth rate was 3.7‰ from 1391 to 1471 and 3.9‰ from 1472 to 1512. Such growth rate was also low when compared with the data of the Qing Dynasty. 4.4.4 Xiangyang Fu In 1476 (Chenghua 12th year), Yuan Jie received orders and headed to the Jingxiang region to resolve the liumin issue, which involved various areas around Xiangyang fu. According to the report of local officials, the liumin population, which had settled in different places, was 920,000.14 During the Hongzhi and Zhengde years, the resettlement of liumin continued, and from 1472 to 1512, the average annual growth rates of the registered population of Xiangyang, Yuyang, De’an, and Changde fu reached 20.7‰, 28.5‰, 9.2‰ and 9.3‰ respectively, much higher than that of other regions. Though far from Xiangyang fu, Changde fu was also a key area of the Hongwu Migration. The situation in northern Huguang was more complicated. Let’s suppose that the average annual population growth rate of Xiangyang fu (including Yunyang) was 20‰ between 1393 and 1512, and 6‰ between 1512 and 1580; that would mean its average annual population growth rate over the 187 years 14 Cao, S. (1997). The Ming Period. In The Emigration History of China (Vol. 5) (pp. 376–393). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Press.

122

Chapter 5

was 14.9‰. According to the above data, the average annual population growth rate of De’an fu in the mid-Ming Dynasty was only 9.2‰, and at this rate, its population in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties cannot be matched. The average annual population growth rate for De’an fu can be set at 12‰, 11‰ for Mianyang prefecture, and 6.5‰ for other places. According to Diagram 3, the population growth rate of Huangzhou fu, where there were only 37 people per square kilometers should have been lower. However, during the early Ming Dynasty, Huangzhou fu was not only a place from where people moved out but also a place for migrants to settle. The population growth rate was generally faster in those places which received a large number of migrants. Therefore, it is appropriate to set the average annual population growth rate of Huangzhou fu in the Ming Dynasty at 6.5‰. In the south of Huangguang, Changde fu and Changsha fu were the major areas in the Hongwu Migration. The average annual population growth rate of Changde fu from 1393 to 1512 can be set at 9.3‰, and 6‰ from 1512 to 1630. Then, its average annual population growth rate was 8.1‰ from 1393 to 1580. In view of the migration scale, the average annual population growth rate for Changsha fu during the same period can be set at 7.5‰ and 6‰ for Yuezhou fu and Baoqing fu. For other fu in Hunan, the average annual population growth rate can be set between 4‰ and 6‰ according to the population density of each fu in the early Ming Dynasty. The population of those places with a low population density grew faster, or vice versa. 4.5 Sichuan According to the “Household and Population,” Vol. 1 of A General Record of Sichuan compiled during the Wanli period, there were 216,000 households and 1,467,000 inhabitants at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty. This figure was actually the number of households and population in Houhu Zhi in 1393. During the Hongzhi period, the household number in Sichuan increased to 254,000 and the population to 2,598,000, with an average annual growth rate of 5.2‰. In the early Ming Dynasty, the Sichuan region received a large number of migrants to the extent it is generally believed the people of Sichuan came from Huguang. According to A General Record of Sichuan compiled during the Wanli period, there were 263,000 military-civilian households and 3,102,000 inhabitants in 1578 (Wanli 6th year) in Sichuan. The average annual population growth rate from 1391 to this date was 4.0‰. These figures are suggestive of the significant importance attached by government to the household survey of such province, which was reconstructed through Hongwu Migration. However, the data for 1578 still had large omissions. Over time, the household-population ratio

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

123

increased from 6.8 in the Hongwu period to 10.2 in the Hongzhi period and then to 11.8 in 1578. If the sex ratio of the registered population in 1578 was set at 200 and then adjusted to 110, the actual population of Sichuan was approximately 3,958,000; its average annual population growth rate between 1391 to 1578 was 5.3‰. For the minority areas such as Wusa, Wumeng, Dongchuan, Mahu, and Zhenxiong, the average annual population growth rate during the Ming Dynasty can be set between 1‰ and 3‰. 4.6 Guangdong and Guangxi Suppose I use a standard average annual population growth rate of 4‰ to measure the population in 1580 (Wanli 8th year). In that case, the population of Guangdong, due to lack of data, can hardly match that of the Qing Dynasty. For example, the population of Qiongzhou fu (Hainan Island) in 1580 would have exceeded its population during the mid-Ming Dynasty. In fact, no reason could be found to explain the massive deaths in Qiongzhou fu from the Ming Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty. Therefore, if the average annual population growth rate of Huizhou is considered to be 4‰, such a rate would be as high as 27‰ in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties; If I use 8‰ as my estimation, then the average annual population growth rate would be 7.7‰ in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. Without any given reason, the population growth rate during the Ming Dynasty was the same as or similar to that of the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. Accordingly, the average annual population growth rate of Guangdong during the Ming Dynasty was about 4.1‰. The population growth rate of each fu in Guangxi from 1580 to 1630 was consistent with the growth rate from 1393 to 1580. Please see Table 6 of the Appendix for details. 5

The Provincial Population and Its Changes during the Ming Dynasty

Based on the data in Table 1 of the Appendix, the provincial and regional population and the average annual growth rates during the Ming Dynasty were outlined in Table 9. It should be noted that most population changes in the frontier areas are obtained based on the fifth principle mentioned at the beginning of this chapter; therefore, the specific process is not elaborated here. In 1393 (Hongwu 26th year), there were approximately 74.65 million inhabitants in the Ming Empire and non-Han areas. They included the civilian population, the military population of wei-suo, the military population under the jurisdiction of wei-suo, the population of zhangguansi in the minority areas,

124 Table 9

Chapter 5 Provincial and regional population of the Ming Dynasty. Population Counting Unit: 1,000 people

Region

1393

1580

Civilians Military Total wei Beiping Shangdong Shaanxi Henan Shanxi South Jingshi North Jingshi Jiangxi South Huguang North Huguang Fujian Zhejiang Guangdong Guangxi Sichuan Guizhou Yunnan Liaodong Dusi Nuergan Dusi Mongolian tribes Beiping Xingdusi Wanquan & Dongshen Shaanxi Dusi Shaanxi Xingdusi Aduan & other wei Yilibali and others Sichuan Dusi Sichuan Xingdusi Tibet Dongfan (Taiwan) Total

2,617 5,828 2,658 2,964 4,410 8,185 3,143 8,034 2,306 1,850 3,701 10,957 3,616 1588 1,748 1,025 784 104 500 360 80 38

319 214 340 319 316 841 392 130 201 184 294 280 224 152 240 398 264 396 0 0 450 367

45 77 70 230 78 67 800 100 67,963

107 138 0 0 12 111 0 0 6,689

2,936 6,042 2,998 3,283 4,726 9,026 3,535 8164 2,507 2,034 3,995 11237 3,840 1740 1,988 1,423 1,048 500 500 360 530 405

1630

1393–1630

Population Population Annual growth rate (‰) 8,611 13,066 8,266 10,667 9,950 18,567 10,907 16,129 7,701 9,239 7,686 20,952 8,303 3,492 5,151 2,377 2,617 2,500 1055 766 50 752

11,715 16,101 10,923 14,609 12,171 22,537 14,753 19,382 10,548 14,832 9,458 24,751 10,484 4,207 6,665 2,735 3,378 3,844 1,288 908 50 805

5.9 4.1 5.5 6.3 4.0 3.9 6.0 3.7 6.1 8.4 3.6 3.3 4.2 3.7 5.1 2.8 5.0 8.6 4.0 4.0

152 708 215 955 70 0 230 636 90 159 178 314 800 800 100 100 74,652 172,476

1,080 1,435 0 835 184 365 917 100 221,060

8.3 8.0

Source: Table 1 of the Appendix and Table 6

2.9

5.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.6

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

125

and other non-Han population that was not under the jurisdiction of the Ming Empire. The number of servicemen in wei-suo and the military population under its jurisdiction reached 6.69 million, accounting for 9% of the total population. By 1630, the total population of China was approximately 221.06 million; meanwhile, the average annual growth rate of China’s population, from 1393 to 1630, was 4.6‰. Among the 17 branches of the 15 buzhengsi, the population of Beiping, Shaanxi, Henan, northern Jingshi, northern Huguang, and Sichuan grew faster than the national average population. In the border areas, the population of the northeast and northwest regions also grew faster than the national average population. As China’s population reached its peak, the northern area was hit by rare droughts and locust plagues. Southern China was also affected by epidemics when northern China was once again hit by plagues. Meanwhile, the military forces of the Qing and Ming dynasties confronted each other in Liaodong, while Zhang Xianzhong and Li Zicheng rose against the imperial court. Finally, the Qing troops broke through the defenses and entered inland areas of China, triggering revolts and massacres. Wu Sangui surrendered to the Qing Dynasty but rebelled again. The Ming Empire fell under natural disasters, plagues, uprisings, and national wars. These led to a significant decline in the population of China. The demographic history of the Qing Dynasty unfolded in a new political environment created by the Manchus. 6

The Population Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

The Map of China’s Administrative Divisions in 1391 6.1 A map of China’s administrative divisions in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) is indispensable for this book. In Vol. 7 of The Historical Atlas of China edited by Tan Qichang, there are two standard dates—1433 (Xuande 8th year) and 1582 (Wanli 10th year), while only the fu and regional maps in 1582 were available. Most of the provincial and fu boundaries discussed in this chapter are similar to those in the Xuande and Wanli periods, but some still differ significantly. The vectorization of the provincial maps in 1582 by Man Zhimin and Hou Yangfang considerably facilitated my mapping of China’s administrative divisions in 1393 in this chapter. Map 1—China’s Administrative Divisions in 1393—is revised and drawn on the basis of Hou Yangfang’s map of China’s Administrative Divisions in 1582. The demarcation of the provincial, fu, and regional boundaries in 1393 can be found in the Chinese version of this book. Based on this work, I draw the regional maps and then measure the area of each region.

126

Chapter 5

In addition to the civilian population, each region has military population. Therefore, the total population is the sum of the civilian and military populations. The so-called “civilian population” generally refers to those people who were accounted for in the fu, prefectural, and county registers. However, “civilian population” in this book has a broader meaning in some areas. For example, the imperial population in the capital was not included in the prefectural or country registers, and some ethnic minority populations were not included in the government registers. Strictly speaking, “civilian population” is used in this study in contrast with the “military population” that refers to the general population minus the military population. This study adopts fu as a standard statistical unit. Therefore, the population of the capital city is listed under the name of Fuguo fu ( fu where the capital city of the Dynasty or of a province is located), i.e., the population of the city of Nanjing is listed under Yingtian fu and that of the city of Beijing under Shuntian fu. The population of the overlapping areas of the military wei and fu is either listed under fu or under military wei. For example the population of Datong fu in Shanxi included that of wei-suo in Shanxi Dusi and also the civilian population under its control. 6.2 The Population Distribution in 1393 According to Table 1 of the Appendix and Map 2, the most densely populated area of China in 1393 was the Jiangnan region which included the five Fu of Jingshi (Southern Zhili)—Yingtian, Suzhou, Songjiang, Changzhou, and Zhenjiang, with an average number of 110 to 290 inhabitants per square kilometer—and the six fu of Zhejiang—Hangzhou, Huzhou, Shaoxing, Ningbo and Jinhua in Zhejiang, with an average number of 130 to 200 inhabitants per square kilometer. The average number of inhabitants per square kilometer in Jiaxing fu was as high as 506. Although the population grew more rapidly in the north during the Ming Dynasty, the Jiangnan region remained the most densely populated in China until the late Ming Dynasty. Shandong was the most densely populated region in the north. The population density of Qingzhou, Dengzhou, and Laizhou was around 50 inhabitants per square kilometer. In the south of Shanxi, the population density of Pingyang, Lu’an, Fenzhou, and Zezhou was around 50 inhabitants. These seven fu were the main areas in northern China from which people moved out in the early Ming Dynasty.15 15

For more information on the population migration during the early Ming Dynasty, please see Cao, S. (1997). The Ming Period. In The Emigration History of China (Vol. 5). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Press.

Map 1

China’s population density in 1393 (26th year of Hongwu)

128

Chapter 5

Fuzhou, Ji’an, and Ruizhou in central Jiangxi province and Raozhou in the northeast of Jiangxi were the key areas from which people moved out. In 1391, the average number of inhabitants per square kilometer in these areas was 100, which seems to have been overestimated compared to the number of li during the Tianshun period. In 1391, the population density of the inland areas was low. The average population density was about 10 inhabitants or less than 10 inhabitants per square kilometer. Yongping fu in Beiping buzhengsi was such a sparsely populated region. If it were not for the large number of military wei, Beiping fu could have been a sparsely populated area. Dongchang fu in Shandong was also a low-density area. Beiping, Yongping, and Dongchang were the well-known areas in the north that received the migrant population. The population density of all other areas in Shaanxi was low except for Xi’an fu and Fengxiang fu in Guanzhong region. Hanzhong fu was the most sparsely populated area which was home to a large number of liumin in the midMing Dynasty. Xiangyang fu in the north of Hubei province was located to the east of Hanzhong fu, and in the mid-Ming Dynasty its west part was separated and renamed Yunyang fu, which neighbored Hanzhong fu. In 1391, the average number of people per square kilometer in Xiangyang fu was only 2.7 inhabitants—a situation that provided ample room for migrants to move in. To the north of Xiangyang fu were Nanpang and Runing in Henan province, that had an average number of 7 to 8 inhabitants per square kilometer and equally a well-known area into which migrants moved during the Ming Dynasty. To the east of Xiangyang was De’an, which became a destination for migrants from Huangzhou because it had only 5 inhabitants per square kilometer. With the population density of 37 inhabitants, Huangzhou received a large number of migrants from Waxieba, Raozhou, in Jiangxi, even though a significant number of its inhabitants moved to De’an and Sichuan. That explains why the older generations of Sichuan people often say, “Macheng and Xiaogan are our hometown.” To the south of Xiangyang were Jingzhou fu and Anlu fu located in the heart of the Jianghan Plain. Jianghan Plain evolved from the Yunmeng Marsh in the pre-Qin period. As sediments from the Yangtze and Han rivers gathered, the Han River Delta expanded, and Yunmeng Marsh shrunk and disintegrated into a cluster of small lakes in the Tang and Song dynasties. From the Hongwu period onwards, a large number of migrants from Nanchang fu and Ji’an fu in Jiangxi moved into this area and started large-scale agricultural activities because the population density of Jingzhou was only 10.4 inhabitants in 1393.

Population Growth and Distribution in the Ming Dynasty

129

Changde fu and Changsha fu in the south of Huguang were the main destinations for migrants from Jiangxi in the late Yuan and early Ming dynasties. Although migrants from Jiangxi also moved into Baoqing, more moved into Changde fu and Changsha fu, other areas in the south and west of Hunan were neither densely populated nor influenced by the great Hongwu Migration. The Shizhou wei region in the north of Huguang was part of the area where people of Tujia nation settled. Just like the mountainous areas of the western Hunan, this region was a main migration area in the Qing Dynasty. Because they were sparsely populated, most fu in Sichuan received a large number of migrants from Huguang in the early Ming Dynasty. The sparsely populated areas of Guangdong were Shaozhou, Lianzhou, and Huizhou. Huizhou was sparsely populated because a large number of inhabitants in its mountainous northern area were not accounted for in the government registers. In the mid to late Ming Dynasty, Heping, Changning, and Yong’an counties were newly established and the population under government control increased significantly. The same was true of neighboring Chaozhou fu where Raoping, Huilai, Zhen Ping, Dapu, and Pingyuan counties were newly established in the mid to late Ming Dynasty. In other words, the sparse population during the Hongwu period was a false phenomenon due to the unregistered population. 6.3 The Population Distribution in 1580 Table 1 of the Appendix shows the administrative divisions in 1393 rather than those in 1580. For example, Fuzhou fu, though its subordinate Funing fu was upgraded to a prefecture under the direct jurisdiction of Fujian buzhengsi, continued to be treated as one administrative division with Funing during the calculation, in 1580, of the population distribution and population density. The map, however, is drawn based on the respective population proportion of the two fu in 1393 and their population distribution; their population density is the same. In 1580, the southern part of the northern border of the Ming Dynasty shrank largely due to the southward withdrawal of Beiping and Shanxi xingdusi, and the increasing number of administrative divisions along the northern defensive line. For example, in order to deal with the threat from the Mongols, the number of wei-suo was increased in the territories of Shaanxi Dusi and Shaanxi xingdusi. In addition, as a result of migration, the sparsely-populated fu of Beiping and Dongchang in 1393 become populated, and other fu, including Huaiqing and Guide were more densely populated. This can be seen more clearly on the population density map of 1580.

Map 2

China’s population distribution in 1580 (Wanli 8th year)

Map 3

China’s population density in 1580 (Wanli 8th year)

Chapter 6

The Rapid Population Decline between the Ming and Qing Dynasties Since 1627 (Qianqi 7th year), northern China had been plagued by a long period of droughts. By 1643 (Chongzhen 17th year), the drought-stricken areas had expanded to many regions in the south. The droughts not only led to poor crop harvest and massive deaths, but they also triggered a rebellion by peasants and border servicemen in Shaanxi province, which further degenerated to peasant wars. The number of deaths in wars was enormous. Besides, the decade-long drought also caused a widespread bubonic plague epidemic and massive deaths. At the beginning of the Qing Dynasty, the imperial court was determined to wipe out the peasant army and local resistance. Therefore, it was not uncommon to witness a large-scale massacre or the slaughter of city dwellers. To overthrow the Qing court, Wu Sangui, a surrendered general of the Ming court, launched the so-called Jiayin Rebellion lasting for four years from 1674 (Kangxi 13th year) to 1678 (Kangxi 17th year), which caused massive deaths in the war-afflicted areas. After the Qing Dynasty established its regime, to prevent the maritime anti-Qing resistance, the “relocation of the border” was implemented, and inhabitants within the proximity of 30 to 60 li alongside the southeast coastal border were forced to abandon their homes and move inland. People could hardly acquire food and clothes on their way, so many died midway, and few could return to their old homes after the relocation. This chapter utilizes a data-based approach to calculate the range and magnitude of the three variables: drought, plague epidemic, and war at the end of the Ming Dynasty. Then the relative number of deaths in each province is estimated. Based on several more reliable sources, I calculate the number of deaths in certain regions and predict the deaths in other areas.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_007

The Rapid Population Decline

1

133

Droughts, Wars, and Plagues

1.1 Droughts Droughts are graded and distributed based mainly from the Chinese Atlas of 500 years of Drought and Flood Distribution.1 In the atlas, five levels of precipitation are used according to local records, namely Level 1-flood, Level 2-partial flood, Level 3-normal, Level 4-partial drought, and Level 5-drought. For example, the so-called Level 5-drought refers to drought lasting several months or across seasons or severe drought over a wide area. According to the authors’ description, during the spring and summer droughts, the land was so “bare people ate the roots and bark of trees; … Droughts in summer and autumn brought about crop failures; … If droughts happened in summer, a famine will loom ahead.” Also, there were records on the Jiangnan droughts. In the atlas, there were 120 sites on the map, each representing one to two fu in the Ming Dynasty. With regard to the grading of precipitation levels at each site, the atlas displays the distribution of droughts and flood levels over the years. In this paper, however, we focus on droughts that fall within Level 5. Informed by the provincial maps of 1582 (Wanli 10th year) in “The Ming period,” Vol. 7 of The Historical Atlas of China edited by Tan Qixiang,2 I overlap the maps of the drought-stricken areas from 1627 to 1643 to create a map with different levels of drought distribution level during 18 years. The darker the color of the province-level administrative regions, the more years they experienced droughts and the more severe the disasters they suffered. See Map 4 for details. The color shades in Map 4 are the number of droughts over the 18 years. The major droughts of the late Ming period mainly happened in the four years between 1638 (Chongzhe 11th year) and 1641 (Chongzhen 14th year); therefore, I make consecutive droughts over the four years the marker of core drought areas. It is clear that Shanxi was the worst hit during the 18 years, and all fu-level administrative regions experienced droughts lasting over five years with the exception of the droughts in Pingyang, Datong, and Taiyuan, that lasted eight or nine years. The next severe drought occurred in Shaanxi where all fu (except for Hanzhong) experienced over four years of drought. In Henan, only Runing had a less severe drought that lasted for two years while all other fu were 1 Academy of Meteorological Sciences of Bureau of Meteorological Sciences (Eds.) (1981). Chinese Atlas of 500 years of Drought and Flood Distribution. Beijing: SinoMaps Press. 2 In “The Ming Period,” Vol. 7 of The Historical Atlas of China edited by Tan Qixiang, there were no complete provincial maps of China in 1582. I am hereby thankful for Houyang who provided me this electronic version.

Map 4

Drought distribution in China 1627–1643

The Rapid Population Decline

135

hit by disasters lasting four or more years. The four northern fu—Shuntian, Baoding, Zhending, and Hezhang—had droughts lasting for four years while the droughts in the four southern provinces—Yongping, Shunde, Guangping, and Daming—lasted three years. The droughts in southern Yingtian fu and Songjiang fu lasted four and five years, respectively. 1.2 Droughts and Wars In 1627 (Tianqi 7th year), droughts struck northern China, with the most devastating occurring in Xi’an fu and Yan’an fu in Shaanxi and the southern part of Pingyang fu in Shanxi. In the wake of the drought, Zheng Yanfu and other people from Chengchen County rushed to the county office and killed the magistrate, kicking off the peasant uprising of the late Ming Dynasty. In 1628 (Chongzhen 1st year), the drought had ravaged most of the areas hit by the drought of 1621. In addition, the drought-stricken areas expanded to Fengxiang fu, Gongchang fu, Yan’an fu, Yulin wei, Taiyuan fu, Datong fu, Zhending fu of Northern Zhili, Hejian fu, Baoding fu, and Xuanfu Town in Shaanxi Province. Wang Jiayin from Fugu county, Gao Yingxiang from Ansai county, and Wang Zuogua from Qingjian county in Yan’an fu started a rebellion. At the same time, the army, famished, mutinied in Guyuan, Jiezhou, and Yulin wei. These uprisings and mutinies mainly took place in the drought-stricken areas between 1627 and 1628. Because of the effects of the droughts, Xi’an fu and Yan’an fu in Shaanxi were incapable of providing rations for the 200,000-peasant army. In 1630 (Chongzhen 3rd year), the main force of the peasant troops entered central and southern Shanxi as the climate was favorable. It was not until 1633 that the peasant army was forced to enter Henan, Hunan, and Guangzhou due to severe droughts in the south-central part of Shanxi. Between 1634 (Chongzhen 7th year) and 1635 (Chongzhen 8th year), disasters were no longer severe except in areas of southern Shanxi, so the main force of the peasant army returned from Henan to Shaanxi. However, due to food pressure, they had to rush to the southern Zhili territory (present-day Anhui province) and return to Shaanxi after obtaining enough crops. Then, as severe droughts occurred in Xi’an fu and Yan’an fu in 1636 (Chongzhen 9th year), the 400,000-peasant army marched back to Anhui up to the opposite side of Nanjing. After that, they withdrew to the mountains bordering Shaanxi, Henan, Hunan, and Guangzhou. As the epidemic broke out in northern China between 1637 (Chongzhen 10th year) and 1638 (Chongzhen 11th year), the peasant army remained active outside the affected areas. However, after repeated failures in Henan, Anhui, and Huguang, the peasant army surrendered to the Ming court and hid in the

Map 5

The relationship between droughts and peasant wars of the late Ming Dynasty

The Rapid Population Decline

137

mountains bordering Shaanxi, Henan, and Huguang. By 1639 (Chognzhen 12th year) and 1640 (Chognzhen 13th year), the northern disaster area had expanded to five provinces, namely Shaanxi, Shanxi, Henan, Zhili, and Shandong, and extended southwards to most areas of southern Zhili. As a result, the peasant army rose again in rebellion. Although the northern drought-stricken areas had reduced to the east of the Yellow River by 1641 (Chongzhen 14th year), north China continued to be entirely hit by the drought. Even northern Zhejiang, southern Zhili, western Jiangxi, Hunan, Guizhou, and parts of Sichuan were affected by droughts. As a result, the peasant army moved from the mountainous areas bordering Shaanxi, Henan, and Hunan provinces and entered the new drought-stricken regions. Numerous hungry people joined the peasant army, rapidly increasing its size to 2 million. Zhang Xianzhong led his troops to fight around Huguang, Anhui, and Sichuan, while Li Zicheng and his troops broke into Beijing and overthrew the reign of the Ming Dynasty. In short, the drought led to food shortages, which triggered peasant uprisings and rebellions. As food became scarce in the affected areas, the peasant army entered the non-affected areas to collect food. Inhabitants in these areas, organized by the government, and government troops, resisted the peasant army. After 1641, wars were primarily waged in the new disaster areas. However, the peasant armies were so powerful that any resistance seemed ineffective. 1.3 Droughts, Wars, and Plagues From 1633 (Chongzhen 6th year), there were epidemics in some places of Shanxi. In Zechu fu, “a devastating epidemic broke out in the summer in Gaoping, Yangcheng, and Qinshui,”3 but the extent of the epidemic was unknown. In Pingyang fu, “a major drought occurred in Linfen, Taiping, Puxian, Linjin, Anyi, Xizhou, Fenxi, Puzhou, and Yonghe. In Yuanqu, a major epidemic broke out. These fu were located close to each other.”4 The epidemic seemed to be relevant to the drought, even though their relevance remains unclear. The warfare caused the spread of epidemics. For example, in Qingyuan County, “in the 4th lunar month of 1632 (Chognzhen 5th year), roving bandits entered the East Pass and burned down hundreds of houses thereby ravaging villages and leaving hundreds of families in isolated towns. In the following year, the shortage of crops caused prices to skyrocket. As a result, the plague

3 “Inauspicious Signs,” Vol. 57 of Records of Zezhou Fu compiled during the Yongzheng period. 4 “Pingyang Fu Section. Records of Pingyang Fu III”, Vol. 330 of The Integration of Ancient and Modern Books. Job Manual. pp. 10749–10750.

138

Chapter 6

struck again, killing countless people.”5 In Liaozhou, “The year of 1632 saw the influx of bandits into towns as corpses piled as high as hills. Hundreds of families were slaughtered. In 1633 (Chongzhen 6th year), a pandemic broke out again.”6 The cause of the pandemic was the same as that in Qinyuan county, but the symptoms were strange. Therefore, there was doubt as to the very nature of the pandemic. The epidemic also affected the counties under the jurisdiction of Taiyuan fu. “In the 6th year of Chongzhen, Pingding fu was in turmoil given that its villages were burnt down and over 8,000 households fled. The stragglers in Leping county took control of the town, killing and injuring more than thirty inhabitants. Thereafter, the plague killed more than half of its population.”7 Judging by the mortality rate, this epidemic was probably a virulent infection or a plague. In the sources mentioned above, it was stated that in Xing county, the western part of Taiyuan fu, “in 1654 and 1635, bandits and robbers in Xing county killed and injured inhabitants as the situation continued to depreciate. The plague was so widespread that people got sick in the morning and died soon at night. Almost whole families died overnight, and the city was empty because the people fled in fear.” Based on the statement “people infected with the epidemic died within one day,” it can be deduced that the epidemic was a pneumatic plague. After 1637 (Chongzhen 10th year), a plague also began to break out in Datong fu. In this year, “the plague was an epidemic. The cattle of You-wei (right wei) also suffered from it. The year 1641 (Chongzhen 14th year) witnessed the outbreak of a new plague for which no one dared to express condolences or engage in any mourning, followed by a ravaging year-long famine. Another plague occurred again in 1643 (Chongzhen 17th year).” By 1651 (Shunzhi 8th year), “with the spread of the plague, many people and animals died.”8 The epidemic was so severe that condolences and mourning became rare. Certainly, it was caused by a virulent transmission of diseases, probably smallpox, given that a zoonosis disease is commonly transmitted among people and cows.

5 “Inauspicious Signs,” Vol. 9 of Records of Qinyuan County. In Vol. 1 of Records of Qinzhou compiled in the Kangxi period, there were similar records confirming its citation from Records of Qinyuan, certainly the early version of Records of Qinyuan or Records of Qinyuan County. 6 “Inauspicious Signs,” Vol. 7 of The Chronicle of Liaozhou compiled during the Kangxi period. 7 “Taiyuan Fu Section. Records of Taiyuan Fu,” Vol. 350 of The Integration of Ancient and Modern Books. Job Manual. p. 10520. 8 “Inauspicious Signs,” Vol. 11 of Records of Shuoping Fu compiled during the Yongzheng period.

Map 6

The plagues of the Chongzhen period

140

Chapter 6

In Hunyuan of Datong, “in 1642 (Chongzhen 16th year), a severe epidemic occurred in Hunyuan causing the death of entire households.”9 In Lingqiu, “in 1643, the epidemic was so devastating to the extent it killed over half of the population died.”10 The high mortality rate revealed by both sources can testify to the severity of the plague. It is also clear that the plague spread to the areas adjacent to Datong fu and Hebei during the Chongzhen period. According to the “Events,” Vol. 15 of Recordsof Lu’an Fu, in 1644 (Shunzhi 17th year), “a ravaging epidemic occurred in the autumn. The sick people first had a nucleus in the armpit and between the femur and then died after vomiting light blood. Medicine turned out to be ineffective. Friends and relatives did not dare to express their condolences or appear at the funeral. Therefore, families were unable to bury their deceased loved ones.” The records were clear that patients’ clinical symptoms included swollen lymph in the groin and axillae. The fact that patients “died after vomiting light blood” indicated that the glandular plague had transformed into a pneumonic plague. This suggests that the plague had spread from central or northern Shanxi to the southern region. In conclusion, the plague broke out in several central and northern Shanxi regions for over ten years, from 1633 to 1644, with the plague symptoms most accurately documented in the records of Taiyuan fu, Datong fu, and Lu’an fu. In terms of the time order of the epidemic transmission, Xing county in the western part of Taiyuan fu was probably the original site of the epidemic, followed by Datong fu and then Lu’an fu. For more details, please see my research on this subject.11 1.4 The Entry of the Qing Army: Sieges and Massacres When the Qing troops broke through the defense fortress and entered inland areas, many local people, organized by the remaining subjects of the Ming Dynasty and the gentry, resisted.12 Wars broke out as the Qing troops entered cities and city dwellers started their defense. As the Qing troops took over cities, they began the slaughtering. The most notorious cases were the “Ten Days in Yangzhou” and “the Three Massacres in Jiading.” In Jiangnan, there

9

“Datong Fu Section. Records of Datong Fu,” Vol. 350 of The Integration of Ancient and Modern Books. Job Manual. p. 10922. 10 “Inauspicious Signs,” Vol. 11 of Records of Lingqiu County compiled during the Kangxi period. 11 Cao, S. & Li, Y. (2006). The Plague: War and Peace: China’s Environmental and Social Changes (1230–1960). Jinan: Shandong Pictorial Publishing House. 12 Cao, S. The Qing Period. In The History of Chinese Population (Vol. 6) (pp. 18–51). Shanghai: Fudan University Press. Additional information can be found from the cited sources.

The Rapid Population Decline

141

were also massacres in Jiangyin, Kunshan, Taicang,13 Zhoushan, Jiaxing, and Jinhua. Massacres did not happen in Huizhou because all resistance had been given up. In Jiangxi, there were massacres in Jiujiang,14 Nanchang, Hukou,15 Ganzhou, and Xinfeng. In Poyang County of Raozhou, I saw a copy of The Genealogy of the Shi Clan, whose preface depicted the massacre orchestrated by Qing soldiers. This reveals that in the context of Literary Inquisition in the Qing Dynasty, massacres in many places were not recorded in the official and local histories. Furthermore, those recorded in the genealogies were remarkably few, making it impossible to obtain the actual number of deaths. As a counter-example, Duchang county did not resist, and the county magistrate, Pan, tried to keep the city dwellers from being slaughtered by offering the Qing soldiers grain, money, and wine. Nevertheless, it is said that the town was “intact with more than 100,000 inhabitants,”16 and the slaughters, it appears, did occur in not only the city of the county but also the whole county. In Ganzhou, massacres by Qing soldiers also extended to the suburban areas around the fu capital city. For example, in the village of Zhangshui in Gan County, “people who survived from the massacres was less than 10%.” In Nanchang, Qing soldiers besieged the city and forced hundreds of thousands of villagers around the provincial capital city to dig ditches; “more than 100,000 locals died.” The same situation happened in Ji’an, Fuzhou, and Guangxin, just to name a few. The Qing soldiers set off from Ganzhou, passed through Nanling, and went down to Guangzhou. Their massacres on the way (especially in Nanxiong and Qingyuan17) and Guangzhou can be found in historical records. Chaozhou and Xinhui also experienced massacres and sieges; the long-time siege was tantamount to a slaughter. Fuzhou, the capital of Fujian province, and the surrounding towns of Haikou and Zhendong also experienced similar sieges and massacres. The siege of Funing fu lasted seven months, causing the entire city to run out of 13 Qian, D. (n.d.). Official Recordings of Hou Huangliang’s Allegiance. In Collected Essays of Qianyantang (Vol. 22). In Supplements for Siku Quanshu (Vol. 1438), 636–639. 14 Liu, K. (n.d.). Exemplary Women in History. In A General Record of Jiangxi compiled in the Guangxu period (Vol. 102). In Wenyuange Siku Quanshu (Vol. 516), 387–388. 15 Li, C. (1996). Military Achievements: The Document of the·National Dynasty (Qing). In Records of Shi Zhongshan (Vol. 10) (p. 121). Nanchang: Jiangxi People’s Press. 16 Tang, L. (1997). The Records of Pan Yihou’s Protection of People in His Territory. In Neixingzhai Wenji. (Vol. 14). In Series of Indexes to Siku Quanshu (Vol. 199) (p. 382). Jinan: Qilu Press. 17 Biography of Zhu Xuexi. In Records of Guangzhou Fu (Vol. 127). In Local Chronicles of China: Records of Guangdong Fu and Counties (Vol. 3) (p. 252).

142

Chapter 6

food and leading to countless deaths. Only one-third of the 270,000 inhabitants in Putian, Xinghua fu—including the townspeople who had entered the city—survived the slaughter. Historical records also contain accounts of the massacre in Xianyou of Xinhua fu18and the siege of Zhangzhou city that lasted ten months and where “all inhabitants in the city died of hunger.”19 In 1645 (Shunzhi 2nd year), Li Zicheng was killed by the Tongshan militia in Hubei. The rest of his 200,000-peasant army was stationed in Pingjiang and Liuyang, where “countless men, women, and children were killed.” According to some sources, “more than half of the inhabitants in Hunan died,” or “more than half of its inhabitants starved to death,” even though it is believed that the description may be overstating the fact. According to the “Calamity: Military Disasters,” Vol. 37 of Records of Changsha Fu compiled in the Qianlong period, Changsha and Baoqing were particularly ravaged. In the “Military Prepara­ tion XI: Military Affairs III,” Vol. 88 of A General Record of Hunan compiled in the Guangxu period, in Xiangtan area, “hundreds of thousands of men and women were killed, and countless inhabitants froze and starved to death in the snow”. In 1649 (Shunzhi 6th year), the Qing army slaughtered in Xiangtan, while “100,000 households in Tancheng and neighboring counties were all destroyed.” The 100,000 households refer to the population of Xiangtan County. In Shanxi, massacres took place in the cities of Datong, Shuozhou, and Hunyuan as well as Taigu, Yuncheng, Qinzhou, Lu’an, and Zezhou. In addition, in Shaanxi, there was the so-called “the slaughter of Pucheng.” Meanwhile, in Baihe County, for example, in 1646 (Shunzhi 3rd year), “bandits like Liu Erhu massacred city dwellers to the extent only a few survived, and the city was left in ruins.”20 In Hunan, Zhang Xianzhong invaded Changde in 1643 (Shunzhi 16th year), killing “killed tens of thousands of people on his way.” In 1645 (Shunzhi 2nd year), in Li Prefecture, “people were plundered, and there was no sign of human habitation over a hundred li.” Li Zicheng, “with 300,000 soldiers, returned from Liuyang to the north, killing and plundering all way and leaving behind an over 300-li stretch of burning fire. They plundered in the northwest of Li Zhou, including more than a hundred li of land burned and looted by the bandits. Meanwhile, piles of naked dead men and women piled on the roads and in the woods of the mountains with their hair disheveled and bodies covered 18 Tang, L. (n.d.). Epitaph of the County Magistrate Wu Zhongsheng. In Collected Works of Neixingzhai (Vol. 29). In Series of Indexes to Siku Quanshu (Vol. 199), 558–559. 19 Haiwai Sanren. (1980). The Document of Rongcheng. In The Document of Qing Dynasty’s History (Vol. 1) (p. 8). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. 20 “Miscellany”, Vol. 13 of The Records of Baihe County.

The Rapid Population Decline

143

in blood.” In the winter of 1647 (Shunzhi 4th year), “the soldiers repeatedly slaughtered in Liuyang as they left and returned leaving Liuyang people with no place to hide.” The defeated General Ma Jinzhong of the Ming Dynasty and his followers gathered hundreds of thousands of people, and “united with the forces in Ning, Yi, Xiangtan counties. After taking over Changsha with dynamic fight-retreat strategies and controlling the Xiangtan area, they burned and plundered areas covering over 46 li in three months. A total of 100,000 people were killed, and countless people died of hunger in the frozen snow. Hungry people from Jiangxi also gathered there, and, eventually, they died.”21 This shows that Changde and Changsha were the main battlefields and accounted for the most deaths in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. In Hubei, the wars of the late Ming Dynasty led to massive deaths. According to the records, in 1635 (Shunzhi 8th year), “bandits plundered Macheng, and their troops arrived soon; Generals Lei and Ma fought against them in Yinshanfan but died there. From then, the bandits ravaged the city repeatedly in groups but never took over the entire city. Nevertheless, houses were ravaged and looted, and countless people were captured and killed. The bandits killed and looted in an area covering more than three hundred li, covering the areas over 15 li from the martial-arts ground to the Guanyin Slope of Yingshan, stretching to southeast Yunmeng, Xiaogan, and northeast Yingshan, Suizhou. In the spring of 1636, Zhang Xianzhong burned and destroyed the houses in Taihu, Qihuang, and Feng Xiangqiao. Zhu Sheng and Deng Yuncheng led one thousand villagers to fight back. However, the bandits stationed at Biayang Mountain killed almost 600,000 inhabitants.”22 In addition to the bandits’ “dens” (stations) in Yunyang and Xiangyang under the leadership of Zhang Xianzhong, De’an, Huangzhou, and Hanyang also became the main battlefields. In the southwest, the entire population of Sichuan province was slaughtered. Zhang Xianzhong’s massacre of Shu (Sichuan) was an indisputable fact. If we divide Sichuan into three parts, less than 5% of the indigenous population remained in the eastern part of Sichuan, about 10 to 15% in central Sichuan, and less than 10% in the Chengdu Plain, western Sichuan. Given the post-war recruitment of indigenous people, the remaining indigenous population was probably only 10% of the pre-war population.23 21 “Military Preparation XI: Military Affairs III.” Vol. 88 of A General Record of Hunan compiled in the Guangxu period. Supplements of Siku Quanshu, Vol. 663, p. 463. 22 “Biography of Ji Kou’s Adventures,” Vol. 2 of A General Record of Hubei (Improved Version). Supplements for Siku Quanshu. Vol. 660, p. 683. 23 Cao, S. (1997). Qing Dynasty and The Republic of China Period (1912–1949). In The History of Chinese Migration (Vol. 6) (pp. 74–77). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House.

144

Chapter 6

In Yunnan, Li Dingguo broke into the capital city of Lin’an fu and “slaughtered the whole city where more than 200,000 corpses piled all over the streets.”24 Meanwhile, other records maintain that “corpses are strewn over an area of over 20 li”25 and according to the records, “straggling bandits slaughtered” in Qujing fu.26 1.5 The Three-Clan Rebellion In 1674 (Kangxi 13th year), Wu Sangui, Prince of Pingxi in Yunnan, Geng Jingzhong, Prince of Jingnan in Fujian, and Shang Kexi, Prince of Pingnan in Guangdong, rebelled against the Qing Dynasty. This is called “The Three-clan Rebellion.” Wu Sangui’s entry into Guizhou went successfully without any major resistance in Hunan. It was only in the areas around Pingjiang and Liuyang in the eastern part of Hunan that Wu met resistance from the local bandits called pengkou (bummers), a group of displaced people from Fujian and Guangdong. After Geng Jingzhong declared his rebellion against the Qing Dynasty, his followers began to ravage places as far as Wenzhou and Taizhou in Zhejiang to the east, Guangxin, Jianchang, and Raozhou of Jiangxi to the west, and Jinhua and Quzhou, Zhejiang, to the center. In Nanfeng County of Jianchang fu, their “burning and killing lasted for three days, and the county was left in ruins accompanied with corpses.” In Nancheng county, “the lootings and killings were brutal, and then the epidemic befell,” leaving the entire county in ruins. It is unknown whether the pandemic in the Kangxi period and the pandemic of the Yongle period resulted from a common disease. In Guangxin fu, “countless inhabitants were killed in an area over a hundred li” and “eight or nine out of ten civilians died, and their fields were reduced to weed.” In fact, the area had already been in ruins during the Shunzhi period, and the Three-clan Rebellion added to more deaths. According to Vol. 5 of Records of Quzhou Fu compiled in the Kangxi period, the impact of the Three-clan Rebellion on Zhejiang was felt in seven counties, namely, Jiangshan, Changshan, and Kaihua in Quzhou, Yunhe and Longquan in Chuzhou, and Yongjia and Rui’an in Wenzhou. The Taizhou area was most significantly affected by wars. In Xianju, for example, “six out of ten people were killed by bandits,” and Jinhua fu and Ningbo fu were also affected by wars. 24 “Eminent Eunuchs,” Vol. 19 of A General Record of Yunnan compiled in the Yongzheng period. Wenyuange Siku Quanshu, Vol. 569, p. 663. 25 “Eminent Eunuchs,” Vol. 479 of Daqing Yitong Zhi (Comprehensive Georgraphy of the Great Qing). Supplements for Siku Quanshu, Vol. 623, p. 663. 26 “Faithful Subjects and Officials,” Vol. 21 of A General Record of Yunnan compiled in the Yongzheng period. Wenyuange Siku Quanshu, Vol. 570, p. 127.

The Rapid Population Decline

145

The Three-clan Rebellion also affected Sichuan and Shaanxi, where considerably high deaths due to the impact of war were recorded. The harm of this rebellion was so immense that any comment and evaluation could fail to capture its monstrosity. 2

The Deaths in Northern China

In this section, the data on population deaths is analyzed province by province. The year 1630 (Zhongzhen 3rd year) is considered the standard point of time before the disaster. In the north, in Hubei and Jiangnan, population losses during the Ming and Qing dynasties mainly occurred between 1630 and 1650 (Shunzhi 7th year), so I use 1650 as the standard point of time after the disaster. In Hunan, Jiangxi, south-central Zhejiang, and Fujian provinces, population losses during the Ming and Qing dynasties mainly occurred between 1640 (Chongzhen 13th year) and 1680 (Kangxi 19th year), so I use 1680 as the standard point of time for the post-disaster or post-war period. I have adopted the administrative divisions in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) as a way to maintain consistency in the administrative regions. In other words, this section aims to establish a data link between the Ming and Qing dynasties—which I have not done in previous studies. The mid-Qing population covered in this study is drawn from the relevant chapters of The History of the Chinese Population, which can also be found in the relevant chapters of this book. From 1580 (Wanli 8th year) to 1630, the main factor affecting the population growth in northern China was the plague epidemic that began in 1580. In contrast to the Chongzhen period, the plague epidemic lasted longer in the Wanli period. Still, most of the affected areas were not hit by large-scale droughts afterward, let alone wars.27 As a result, the impact of this massive plague epidemic on the population is not significantly represented in the data. In this section, I still use the average annual population growth rate from 1393 to 1580 to measure the population of each fu from 1580 to 1630. Compared with the Chongzhen period epidemic, the plague in the Wanli period was less severe and caused less population loss. I assumed that it would have taken 10 to 20 years of natural population growth for the plague-stricken areas to make up for their population loss. However, such an estimation turned out inaccurate. Given enough time, the population loss caused by the plague could be quickly made up while the population growth rate continued to 27 Cao, S. & Li, Y. (2006). The Plague: War and Peace: China’s Environmental and Social Changes (1230–1960). Jinan: Shandong Pictorial Publishing House.

146

Chapter 6

remain stable. In addition to Shuntian fu, where a mega-city such as Beijing was located, the population growth rate of other regions before 1580 was the same as that of 1581–1630. 2.1 Northern Zhili The most reliable data on the household population of the Qing Dynasty is the number of fu in each province recorded in Jiaqing Yitongzhi. However, in the case of Shuntian fu, the population recorded in Jiaqing Yitongzhi was considerably lower than the total population of all counties in 1781 (Qianlong 46th year) recorded in Vol. 145 of The Rixia Old News. Then I thought that the data from Jiaqing Yitongzhi might be inaccurate and adopted that of 1781 in The History of Chinese Population. However, if I use the data of all counties recorded in The Rixia Old News as a starting point and the 1953 census data as an ending point, the average annual population growth rates in Liangxiang, Shunyi, and Pinggu counties from 1781 to 1953 would be 8.2‰, 8.1‰ and 11.3‰ respectively, which are too high and suggest that the 1781 data were low. In Yongqing, Baodi, and Dacheng counties, however, the population in 1781 actually exceeded that in 1953, suggesting that the 1781 data were too high. If I exclude these anomalous population figures and do not take Beijing city into consideration, the average annual population growth rate of Shuntian fu (including Zunhua Prefecture) from 1781 to 1953 was 4.3‰. Such a rate is quite reasonable and shows that the adjusted population figure of 3.86 million in 1781 is relatively reliable. Han Guanghui set the urban population of Beijing in 1781 at 987,000,28 and then the population of Shuntian fu (including Beijing City) in that year was 4,847,000. From 1580 to 1780, the average annual population growth rate was 1.7‰. Table 1 shows that the average annual population growth rate of Shuntian fu was 9‰ from 1393 to 1580. Its normal average annual growth rate was about 6.6‰ if the rapid development of Beijing was not taken into consideration. Here, I use 6.6‰ to calculate population growth after 1580. Similarly, I use 1680 (Kangxi 19th year) as the standard point of time to calculate the population of Shuntian fu in the early Qing Dynasty, and then 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) as the standard point of time to calculate the population in the mid-Qing Dynasty. The average annual population growth rates from 1680 to 1776, then from 1776 to 1820 were 5.5‰ and 4‰, respectively, while the population was 2.756 million and 4.666 million, respectively. Accordingly, the population in 1650 is estimated to be 2,338,000. The 20-year period from 1630 to 1650 included four years of severe droughts, plagues, and wars, leading 28 Han, G. (1996). The Historical Demographic Geography of Bejing. Beijing: Peking University Press.

The Rapid Population Decline

147

to a net reduction in the population of Shuntian fu of about 2,457,000 (if I subtract 2,338,000 from 4,795,000).29 After 1644 (Chongzhen 17th year), nearly 343,000 Manchus entered Beijing, resulting in a net population reduction of at least 2.8 million inhabitants in Shuntian fu. Plagues in Beijing and Tianjin were well documented as massive population deaths were also associated with plagues.30 2.1.1 Baoding Fu According to Jiaqing Yitongzhi, the population of Baoding fu was 3,152,000 in 1820. I can use its population growth rate of 4‰ for regression analysis going back to 1776 and then 5.5‰ going back to 1680. The data are shown in Table 6. I adopt the same method, especially the population growth rate of the mid-Ming Dynasty, to calculate the population of other fu in Zhili from 1580 to 1630. Based on the 1820 population recorded in Jiaqing Yitongzhi, I use 5.5‰ and 4‰ as the population growth rates from 1680–1776 and from 1776 to 1820 to calculate the population figures at these two points of time. The specific data are shown in Table 6. The crux of the matter is to determine whether the data of 1820 are reliable. If we compare them with the 1953 census data, there would be a need to further explain the growth rates that are too high or too low. For example, the average annual population growth rate of Hejian fu (part of Hejian fu in the Ming Dynasty) in the Qing Dynasty was 4.9‰ over the 133 years while that of Tianjin fu (part of Tianjin fu in the Ming Dynasty) in the Qing Dynasty was as high as 8.2‰ during the same period. However, if we exclude the population of Tianjin city, the average annual growth rate of Tianjin fu would be only 2.6‰. Accordingly, the average annual growth rate of Tianjin fu was only 3.9 in the 133 years. In short, in North China, which was not entirely industrialized and urbanized, the population growth rate fluctuated around 4‰ after the mid-Qing period, while in the early Qing Dynasty, it should have been higher than this figure. This is why the average annual population growth rate from 1680 to 1776 is set at 5.5‰ in this book. In other words, in the early Qing Dynasty, the average annual population growth rate of northern Zhili fu was approximately the same as that of the middle and late Ming Dynasty, but it slowed down afterward. However, due to the rapid growth of the urban

29 Cao, S. (1997). Qing Dynasty and The Republic of China Period (1912–1949). In The History of Chinese Migration (Vol. 6) (p. 35). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House. 30 Cao, S. & Li, Y. (2006). The Plague: War and Peace: China’s Environmental and Social Changes (1230–1960). Jinan: Shandong Pictorial Publishing House.

148

Chapter 6

population in Tianjin, the average annual population growth rate of Hejian fu (including Tianjin fu) in the early Qing Dynasty can be set at 10‰. The data of each fu in the Beiping (Northern Zhili) region are treated the same way, so a detailed description of the process is omitted here (For details, see Table 6). In general, in the 20 years from 1630 to 1650, there was a net decrease in the population of Beiping fu, Baoding fu, Hejian fu, Guangping fu, and Daming fu. The population of these five fu plus Manchu migrants reduced by 3.911 million, i.e., 33.3% of the total population in 1630. However, during the 20 years of the Ming and Qing dynasties, the population of Zhending fu, Shunde fu, and Yongping fu continued to grow at an average annual rate of 5‰ to 7‰. 2.2 Henan Based on the example of northern Zhili, I estimate that the average annual population growth rate from 1680 to 1776 was about 1‰ higher than the population growth rate from 1776 to 1820. That means Table 6 contains the population of each fu in Henan in 1680. The population of Henan was 14.609 million in 1630 and 12.84 million in 1650, meaning there was a net decrease of 1.769 million or a decrease rate of 12.1%. Therefore, with the exception Weihui fu, Nanyang fu, and Runing fu, which witnessed population growth, the population loss of Henan was 2,981,000 inhabitants. As far as each fu is concerned, over the first 20 years of regime change between the Ming and Qing dynasties, the population of Kaifeng fu reduced by 1.548 million, i.e., a 24.2-percent reduction rate. During the late Ming Dynasty wars, Kaifeng, the capital of Henan province, suffered three sieges by the peasant army from Shaanxi province. Although the city was not invaded, the siege, which involved a significantly large number of soldiers on both sides, protracted. That led to the destruction of the area around Kaifeng. The peasant army finally flooded Kaifeng by breaching the Yellow River dam, a severe man-made disaster that caused massive deaths in Kaifeng. Huaiqing fu was located in the narrow area between Henan and Shanxi, and the peasant armies from Shanxi and Shaanxi often came to Huaiqing, causing a net population loss as high as 44.6%. By contrast, the net population loss of Changde fu was 36.7%, but the reason was unknown. Henan fu was the main area for the activities of the peasant army, who came back and forth between Henan and Shaanxi. From 1630 to 1650, the population of Henan fu fell by 637,000, a decrease rate of 34.2%. In comparison, Nanyang and Runing witnessed relatively minor population loss and no net reduction in population. This was not only due to these two fu being in the far reach of the late Ming drought but also due to less intense wars. As a matter of fact, both were not the main battlefields in the late Ming period.

The Rapid Population Decline

149

From 1630 to 1650, the average annual population growth rate of Weihui fu was regular, at was 4.6‰. Indeed, the peasant army of Shaanxi entered from Zhangde the Taihang Mountains in the north of Weihui fu in 1633 (Chongzhen 6th year) and stopped there for a brief period. Thus, Weihui was probably the least war-torn area in Henan province in the late Ming Dynasty.31 2.3 Shanxi In 1630, the total population of Shanxi was 12,171,000, but by 1650 there were only 6,975,000 inhabitants left. Such net decrease in population happened in all fu. Their net population decline was 5,196,000, a 36.7% decrease rate. The four fu—Zezhou, Luzhou, Liaozhou, and Qinzhou in south-eastern Jin—suffered the greatest population loss, followed by Pingyang fu in south-western Jin, then Fenzhou fu. During the 20 years, the average annual population growth rate of Taiyuan fu remained 3.2‰, which was normal but slightly lower than the pre-war rate of 3.8‰. According to my estimation, about 46% of the population of Datong died. In reality, however, the mortality rate of Datong was much higher because the area of Datong fu, used in my calculation, was much more extensive. In addition to droughts and plagues, wars against the Qing Dynasty in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties were a major cause of deaths among the local population. 2.4 Shaanxi Table 6 shows that the population growth rates of Qingyang fu, Pingliang fu, Gongchang fu, and Lintao fu from 1393 to 1820 remained between 5‰ and 8‰. These four fu were under the jurisdiction of Gansu Province during the Qing Dynasty. Between 1630 and 1650, the population of the four fu that belonged to Shaanxi in the Qing Dynasty decreased by 4,028,000 inhabitants, i.e., 53% of the 1630 population. As far as individual fu was concerned, the net population reduction in Hanzhong fu was about 92%. However, in Yan’an fu, Xi’an fu, and Fengxiang fu, it was about half. Such a massive population decline was mainly due to calamities and wars. In the late Ming Dynasty, the confrontation between the peasant army and government forces primarily occurred in these four fu. 2.5 Shandong In Table 6, only the population of Qingzhou fu and Jinan fu did not increase. In contrast, it decreased by 739,000 inhabitants from 1630 to 1650. In the late 31 Cao, S. (2019). Crops and Soldiers: The Relations of Droughts and Peasant Wars in the Late Ming Dynasty (Shi Lin). Vol. 2.

150

Chapter 6

Ming Dynasty, both Qingzhou and Jinan were infested with plagues that were equally the leading cause of numerous deaths in the two fu. 2.6 Shaanxi Dusi and Shaanxi Xingdusi According to Chapter 4 of this book, the population of Minzhou wei grew rapidly. That explains why the population growth rate in the Ming Dynasty was set at 8‰, and that of Taozhou at 6‰. In Table 6, for areas that did not experience any major disasters, epidemics, and wars in the late Ming Dynasty, their population in 1650 is calculated according to the population growth rate of the Ming Dynasty and based on the 1630 data. In this section, I discuss the population growth in the Ming Dynasty by matching it with that of the Qing Dynasty. For instance, Ningxia’s population was known to have been 84,000 in 1393 and 1,533,000 in 1776. That means the average annual population growth rate during the 383 years was 7.6‰. Using the administrative division of the Qing Dynasty as the standard, the average annual population growth rate of Ganzhou, Liangzhou, and Xining fu remained between 7‰ and 8.5‰ from 1393 to 1820. The high population growth in the Shaanxi dusi and Shaanxi xingdusi regions was mainly caused by migration. In addition to the population of the military wei, the civilian population included a large number of soldiers from the former Yuan Dynasty. Besides, many Hui people migrated there and mainly settled in the eastern and western parts of Shaanxi xingdusi and Ningxia area under the jurisdiction of Shaanxi dusi.32 Therefore, it may be appropriate for me to set the average annual population growth rate of most of these areas at 8‰ to 9‰. 2.7 The Xinjiang Region In Table 6, the population remained unchanged from the early Ming Dynasty to the mid-Qing Dynasty in the three wei of Aduan. In the Urumqi region, its lowest population growth in the Qing Dynasty was in 1680 due to the warfare by the rebellious Junggar Tribes. The southern part of Xinjiang was not affected by the war, and its population grew steadily even in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. 2.8 The Northern Border Region The northern border area included the Mongolian tribes, Beiping Xingdusi, Wanquan Dusi, and Dongsheng wei during the Hongwu period. Unfortunately,

32 Cao, S. (1997). The Ming Period. In The History of Chinese Migration (Vol. 5) (pp. 454–461). Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House.

The Rapid Population Decline

151

the population data for this vast area was absent in any record in the mid-Qing period. Therefore, in this section, I set the average annual population growth rate from 1580 to 1680 from 1680 to 1775 at 2‰, and then tentatively set the average annual population growth rate from 1776 to 1820 at 4‰. The details of the population of each region for each period are shown in Table 6. 3

The Deaths of the Southern Population

3.1 Southern Zhili In the area north of the Yangtze River or north China, the average annual population growth rate from 1680 to 1776 was supposed to be 1‰ higher than from 1776 to 1820. Accordingly, during the Ding Revolution of the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, Xuzhou and Huai’an experienced various degrees of net population decrease. The massacre by the Qing soldiers, known as the “Ten Days in Yangzhou,” resulted in the death of 800,000 inhabitants in and around Yangzhou. After the war, Yangzhou city, the center of the canal transport and salt industry, rose rapidly and quickly recovered its population. To work out the 730,000-inhabitant net decrease in the population of Yangzhou between 1630 and 1650, I should set its average annual population growth rate from 1650 to 1776 at 9.5‰. If the standard point of time before the disaster is set 1643, the population decrease could be even more significant. Even if I set the average annual population growth rate of Huai’an fu, which was adjacent to Yangzhou fu, at 4.2‰ from 1650 to 1776, its net population decrease could still be 658,000 inhabitants. The population of the four fu—Yingtian (Jiangning fu in the Qing Dynasty), Zhenjiang, Suzhou, and Songjiang in Jiangnan—declined drastically. A total of 50% of the population of Yingtian and Songjiang died, so there is no record in historical documents. It may be argued that the high population loss of Yingtian fu in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties was due to its high average annual population growth rate—6.4‰—from 1776 to 1820. Even if we use the average annual growth rate of 4‰ for regression analysis going back from 1820, the population of Yingtian fu in 1650 would still have been 2,896,000 inhabitants, a net reduction of 44.1% of its 1630 population. Undoubtedly, with Nanjing as its capital city, there must have been a significant population reduction in Yingtian fu. During the 20 years, the population of Changzhou fu declined slightly due to the massacres in Jiangyin. As a result, the net population of Zhenjiang fu decreased by 526,000 inhabitants, a reduction almost equaling 38.1% of its population in 1630 that is unaccounted for in historical records.

152

Chapter 6

3.1.1 Anhui Bounded by the Yangtze River, Anhui was also divided into two parts, Jiangnan and Jiangbei. Jiangnan included Fengyang, Luzhou, Anqing, Chuzhou, and Hezhou. Apart from Hezhou, which had a small area, the average annual population growth rate of the other four fu and prefectures from 1776 to 1820 was around 5‰. Therefore, we will assume that the average annual population growth rate of the four fu and prefectures from 1650 to 1776 was slightly higher, i.e., by 1‰, as shown in Table 6. Except for Hezhou, the population of the other four fu and prefectures in Jiangbei increased from 1630 to 1650; their average annual population growth rate was 6.7‰, similar to that of the Ming Dynasty. The impact of the late Ming wars was utterly invisible as a careful comparison of Map 4, and Map 5 indicates the mortality rate was high uniquely in areas ravaged by wars and multiple droughts, or vice versa. The area in the north of the Yangtze River in Anhui conspicuously falls into the latter category. The high mortality in Hezhou, Taiping, Ningguo, and Guangde may be related to massive deaths in their neighboring Yingtian fu. Assuming 3.8‰ to be the average annual population growth rate of all fu (Chizhou fu in the south of the Yangtze River), we can match their population with that of the Qing Dynasty. The average annual population growth rate of Chizhou in the Ming Dynasty was 6‰, the same as that of Anqing. In the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, this region experienced no major wars nor disasters, so its population grew naturally. The only exception was Guangde fu, whose net population decrease was nearly 500,000 at the end of the Ming Dynasty, accounting for 70% of its original population. The reasons for such decline are yet to be known. 3.2 Huguang During the Qing Dynasty, the administrative divisions of southern Huguang changed considerably. Guoyang prefecture was separated from Hengshou fu; Yuanzhou fu, Huangzhou ting, and Qianzhou ting were separated from Chenzhou fu; Baojing fu xuanweisi was split into Yongsui ting and Fenghuang ting; Lizhou fu was separated from the western part of Yuezhou fu; while Yongshun xuanweisi and Sangzhi county of the old Yuezhou fu were combined into Yongshun fu. To maintain consistency with the administrative divisions of the early Ming period, Yongzhou fu in Table 6 includes Quanzhou Prefecture and Guanyang County, and Changde fu includes Lizhou Prefecture. In Table 6, the population of Hengzhou fu decreased by 63% from 1630 to 1650, while the population of the three fu—Changsha, Changde, and Yuezhou—decreased by nearly half.

The Rapid Population Decline

153

The administrative divisions of northern Huguang during the Qing Dynasty changed considerably compared to those of the Ming Dynasty. Hanyang fu in the Qing Dynasty was no longer the same as Hanchuan county in the early Ming Dynasty, but still included Xiaogan of De’an fu, Huangpi of Huangzhou fu, and the entire Mianyang fu of the mid-Ming Dynasty; Shizhouwei was renamed Shizhou fu, but its Wufeng city and Hefeng city were split into Yichang fu which was part of Jingzhou fu. Except for Anlu fu, including Zhongxiang and Jingshan, Jingmen fu was also part of Jingzhou fu in the early Ming period. In addition, Wuchang fu remained the same while Xiangyang fu and Yunyang fu were separated from Xiangyang fu of the early Ming Dynasty. As far as each fu is concerned, the net population reduction was over 80% in Xiangyang fu, nearly 50% in Huangzhou fu, and over 40% in De’an fu. Other details are available in Table 6. In terms of the influence of warfare in the late Ming, Xiangyang (including Yunyang fu) and Huangzhou fu were the two main peasant army bases, and De’an fu was halfway between Xiangyang and Huangzhou. Inevitably, the most significant population loss occurred in this stretch of vast areas. 3.3 Zhejiang The administrative divisions of Zhejiang at the fu level remained unchanged during the Ming and Qing dynasties. From 1393 to 1820, the average annual population growth rate of Yanzhou fu was 3.3‰ while that of Shaoxing was 3.2‰, and below 3‰ in all the other fu. During the chaos in the Ming and Qing dynasties, Yanzhou fu, located in the mountainous region of western Zhejiang, was not largely affected by wars, disasters, and epidemics. Therefore, 3.3‰ is considered the average annual population growth rate of all fu of Zhejiang in the Ming Dynasty. In addition, the population of Shaoxing fu increased rather than decreased during the decade-long regime change between the Ming and Qing dynasties. It was the same situation in Yanzhou fu. As noted above, the Qing troops entered Zhejiang, with their most atrocious act being the massacre in Jiaxing and Jinhua. Unfortunately, records available in the existing documentation are unclear, meaning the number of deaths may be far beyond our estimation. Therefore, I set 1644 in Table 6 as the standard point of time for this period and equally use it to estimate the population of Jiangxi and Fujian provinces. According to Table 6, the net population decrease of Chuzhou fu was 69% (obtained by comparing the population of 1644 with that of 1680). In addition to the influence of the “Three-clan Rebellion,” the decrease was also related to frequent rebellions of miners and diankou (bummers) in this region during the late Ming Dynasty. Therefore, in the early years of the Qing Dynasty, this region received a large number of migrants from the Tingzhou region

154

Chapter 6

of Fujian province. As a result, the population of Jinhua fu was reduced by about 58% due to massacres committed by Qing soldiers coupled with rebellions and killings by diankou in the mountainous areas. The situation was the same in Chuzhou fu. In comparison, Quzhou was the main battlefield of the “Three-clan Rebellion,” and its net population decrease was 33.8%. Jiaxing fu, in northern Zhejiang, merits special attention in this discussion. According to Table 6, the net population decline of Jiaxing fu from 1644 to 1680 was 59%, similar to that of Jinhua fu. Massacres by the Qing soldiers after they entered inland areas were the main reason for the decline. 3.4 Jiangxi According to Table 6, the most significant population loss in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties was in Yuanzhou, where nearly two-thirds of its inhabitants died. The area was devastated by the great drought at the end of the Ming Dynasty and the invasion by Zhang Xianzhong’s troops. Many displaced people from Fujian and Guangdong moved here from the late Ming to the early Qing dynasties. There were equally significant population losses in Raozhou fu, Fuzhou fu, and Ji’an fu, where the net population reduction was over 50%. Massacres by the Qing soldiers and the “Three-clan Rebellion” were mainly responsible for such massive population losses. In addition, large-scale deaths in Guangxin fu and Jianchang fu were also attributed to the “Three-clan Rebellion.” The net population reduction in Ruizhou fu was over 40% and was primarily due to the “Three-clan Rebellion.” The Fujian migrants in the western Ganxi region mainly took control of Yuanzhou fu, with Xinchang and Shanggao of Ruizhou fu serving as outposts in the east; the migrants also plundered in Liuyang and Liling in the west. In fact, they conquered Xinchang three times, then defeated Shanggao. The scale of the wars, which lasted for a long time, was enormous. Located in the middle of Jiangxi province and the middle reach area of Gan River, Linjiang fu was the transportation hub in Jiangxi. It was also the gateway for Zhang Xianzhong to enter Yuanzhou and Ji’an and later for the Qing troops to move southwards from northern Gan to southern Gan. The explains why there was a net reduction of over 30% in the local population. During the Qing Dynasty, migrants from Fujian and Guangdong provinces in southern Gan accounted for 30% of the local population. Therefore, it is appropriate to set the average annual population growth rates in the two periods of the mid-Qing Dynasty at 8‰ and 12‰, respectively. During the regime change between the Ming and Qing dynasties, Ganzhou was besieged and slaughtered, and the river valleys of the counties, including Xingguo, Yudu, and

The Rapid Population Decline

155

Ganxian, were deserted after the wars. As a result, a large number of “Hakka” migrants from Fujian and Guangdong provinces moved into the area, leading to rapid population growth in the post-war period. In the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, the population of Jiujiang fu continued to grow despite the massacres by the Qing soldiers. It may have been partly due to the less brutal warfare in Jiujiang or partly due to the underestimated population growth rate during the Ming Dynasty. 3.5 Fujian In 1393, the population of Zhangzhou fu was 473,000, accounting for 84% of the population of Quanzhou fu. Both Zhangzhou fu and Quanzhou fu were located in the same administrative region, but Zhangzhou fu’s population in 1953 was only 62.8% that of Quanzhou fu. However, in Jiaqing Yitongzhi, the population of Zhangzhou fu was 1.4 times that of Quanzhou fu, which is indeed inaccurate and, therefore, not credible. Assuming we maintained the population of Zhangzhou fu in 1820 at 84% that of Quanzhou fu, then its population would be 2,463,000 inhabitants. According to Table 6, in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, the population of Xinghua fu decreased by 67%, followed by that of three fu—Zhangzhou, Quanzhou, and Fuzhou, all of which had a population decrease of over 30%. In addition to wars between the Qing soldiers and the regime of Zheng Chenggong, the relocation of the border inhabitants was also a significant contributing factor to population death. Tingzhou fu, which was not affected by the relocation and wars at all, can be used to make the comparison. Its population grew significantly during the twenty-year regime change between the Ming and Qing dynasties. 3.6 Guangdong and Guangxi No data on Guangdong and Guangxi were available. Therefore, in estimating the population growth rate during the Ming Dynasty in Chapter 4 of this book, I assumed that the population growth rates of all fu in Guangdong were essentially the same. Therefore, it is impossible to measure the population losses in the late Ming Dynasty. While the population of Guilin fu was as high as 570,000 inhabitants in the early Ming Dynasty, by 1820, the population in the same area had increased to only 731,000 inhabitants. Based on the growth rate, I extrapolate the population of Guilin fu and estimate it was as high as 1,396,000 inhabitants in 1630, but only 346,000 inhabitants in 1650, a net reduction of up to 1,050,000 inhabitants. For now, the reasons for this reduction are unknown. However, Pingle fu is the opposite case because its population growth rate remained high from

156

Chapter 6

the early Ming Dynasty to the mid-Qing period. This was due to its location in Guangxi province that received the largest number of migrants, and to the intense clashes between the locals and the Hakka. 3.7 Sichuan and the Western Sichuan Border Area Here, I assume that the population growth rates of Wusa fu and four other fu, between 1650 and 1775, were the same as those between 1776 and 1829. Due to the large number of migrants, I assume that the average annual population growth rate of all fu in Sichuan (except for Yazhou) was 40‰ in the same period. For its part, Yazhou had an average annual population growth rate of 20‰. Therefore, we can see that the total population of Sichuan in 1650 was 744,000 inhabitants. After deducting Wusa fu and four other fu, it was only 431,000 inhabitants, and by 1680, it was 503,000 inhabitants. In 1630, the population of the same region was 6,445,000 inhabitants, a net decrease of about 6 million inhabitants. Droughts, plagues, and the massacre in Sichuan by Zhang Xianzhong at the end of the Ming Dynasty led to the death of 6 million inhabitants. 3.8 Guizhou and Yunnan I use the average annual population growth rate of each fu or wei in Guizhou from 1393 to 1776 to calculate the population of each fu or wei in 1580, 1630, 1650, and 1680. The average annual population growth rate of most fu or wei was between 2.5‰ and 4.4‰ while the average annual population growth rate of Bijie, Chishui, Pingyue, and Pingxi was no more than 1.8‰, while that of Oingyue was even as low as 0.5‰. The average annual population growth rate of Weiqing in the western suburbs of Guiyang was 5.8‰ due to the urban influence of Guiyang. The population of Yunnan kept growing during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. Details are shown in Table 5. 4

Summary

Using provincial or capital-level administrative regions as standard units, here, I show population changes of the late Ming and early Qing dynasties in Table 10. During the 20 years between 1630 and 1650, China’s population fell from 221.06 million to 185.81 million, a decrease of 35.25 million inhabitants or 15.9%. By 1680, the population of Zhejiang, Jiangxi, and Fujian provinces continued to decline due to the “Three-clan Rebellion” and other wars, while the population of other provinces continued to grow. The national population

157

The Rapid Population Decline

reached 187.2 million in that year, an increase of 1.39 million inhabitants compared to the population in 1650. Since such calculation does not indicate the scale of population deaths, Table 10 sets the value of “net population decline,” which refers to the addition of the net population declines. By 1650, there was a net decrease of approximately 48.55 million inhabitants, accounting for 21.9% of the national population in 1630. By 1680 after the end of the “Three-clan Rebellion,” there was still a net decrease of 58.62 million inhabitants, accounting for 26.4% of the total population in 1630 compared with 1630. As far as individual fu are concerned, the net population decline and the net decline rate of each fu in the whole country are shown in Maps 7 and 8, respectively. It should be noted that these two maps cover both the population changes from 1630–1650 and from 1650 to 1680. In general, during the half-century from 1630–1680, the areas with a high mortality rate include those spanning from Liaodong, northern China to Sichuan, then from Sichuan to the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, and also the coast of Zhejiang and Fujian. On the other hand, Huaibei region, Shandong, and southern Henan, which belonged to the capital Jingshi, suffered relatively small population losses. However, their rate of mortality has been offset or partly offset by their population growth. It is on this basis that the Qing Dynasty started its population changes. Table 10

Population changes of each province in the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties. Population counting unit: 1000 people

Region

Population

　

1630

Beijing Shandong Shaanxi Henan Shanxi South Jingshi North Jingshi Jiangxi South Huguang

11715 16101 10923 14609 12171 22537 14753 19382 10548

Population changes

1650 8471 17179 7922 12840 6975 15356 14676 20408 7466

1680 10246 19568 9460 15581 7872 17278 17608 11310 8861

1630–50 −3244 1078 −3001 −1769 −5196 −7181 −77 1026 −3082

Net population decrease 1630–80 1650 −1469 3467 −1463 972 −4299 −5259 2855 −8072 −1687

−3901 −739 −4028 −2981 −5352 −7234 −1456 −3899

1680 −2938 −294 −3459 −1477 −4753 −5871 −362 −8345 −2977

158 Table 10

Chapter 6 Population changes of each province in the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties (cont.)

Region

Population

　

1630

North Huguang 14832 Fujian 9458 Zhejiang 24751 Guangdong 10484 Guangxi 4207 Sichuan 6665 Guizhou 2735 Yunnan 3378 Liangdong Dusi 3844 Nuergan Dusi 1288 Mongolia 908 Beiping Xingdusi 50 Wanquan and 750 other wei Dongshengand 55 other wei Shaanxi Dusi 1080 Shaanxi Xingdusi 1435 Xinjiang 835 Sichuan Dusi 184 Sichuan Xingdusi 365 Tibet 917 Taiwan 100 Total 221060

Population changes

1650

1680

1630–50

Net population decrease 1630–80 1650

7602 10044 25919 11563 3964 744 3129 3745 232 908 945 50 759

9803 8069 15175 13411 4719 842 3842 4384 300 1023 1003 55 857

−7230 586 1168 1079 −243 −5921 394 367 −3612 −380 37 0 9

−5029 −1389 −9576 2927 512 −5823 1107 1006 −3544 −265 95 5 107

57

61

2

6

1229 1584 149 1482 1897 47 434 519 −401 71 81 −113 572 626 207 936 1035 19 134 134 34 185812 187204 −35248

504 462 −316 −103 261 118 34 −33856

Data source: See Appendix Table 5

1680

−7230 −8

−5029 −1867 −9941

−1385 −6083 −44

−1147 −6029 −48

−3613 −380

−3544 −365

−104 −112

−73 −103

−48548

−58622

Map 7

Net population decline in the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties

Map 8

Net population decline rate in the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties

Chapter 7

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces in the Mid-Qing Dynasty In our estimation of the population in the mid-Qing Dynasty, we mainly used the prefectural data from Jiaqing Yitong Zhi while consulting data from other sources. This book only provides a detailed analysis of the areas whose figures appear problematic. We estimate the population numbers of 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) based on the 1820 data from Jiaqing Yitong Zhi while referencing population growths obtained from the recorded county figures of concerned areas. In cases of no usable county records, we refer to the regional population ratios. Among all the provincial numbers in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, those of Zhejiang province are the most credible. In contrast, Jiangsu data is much more complicated, with the numbers of “ren-ding” (civilian population) in some areas referring solely to the numbers of adult males. Given that this is not the case in all areas, there is a need to identify these areas in our calculation. As for the Anhui data, the “tun-ding” (military population) number is suspiciously small. Fortunately, we have recovered the missing data from Wan Sheng Ji Lue, where we determine the missing data is that of the descendants of the military population of the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). Finally, for Jiangxi province, we obtained our results by cross-checking the figures from Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, and the household records of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908). 1

Zhejiang

The figures for the Zhejiang prefectures in 1820, as recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, are largely reliable. Therefore, there is no need for correction. Rather, this section will focus on estimating the average annual growth rates of the population around 1820. 1.1 Jiaxing Fu Vol. 20 of Jiaxing Fu Records edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908) contains the population records between 1769 (Qianlong 34th year) and 1838 (Daoguang 18th year). Within these four years, the average annual population

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_008

162

Chapter 7

growth rate was 3.4‰. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Jiaxing fu had 516,000 households, 2.805 million inhabitants, which makes an annual average population growth rate of 3.8‰ from 1769 to 1820. The rate increased 4.8‰ from 1789 (Qianlong 54th year), meaning the average annual population growth rate of Jiaxing in the mid-Qing Dynasty ought to be around 4‰. This leads us to estimate that, in 1776, the population of Jiaxing was around 2.353 million. 1.2 Yanzhou Fu According to Vol. 9 of Yanzhou Records edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1754 (Qianlong 19th year), Yanzhou fu had 149,000 households and 739,000 inhabitants meaning there were five people per household. However, in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the statistics are different as the number of households increases to 227,000 with 146.1 inhabitants and 6.4 people per household. This suggests the annual average population growth rate from 1754 to 1820 was as high as 10.4‰. With regard to individual counties, Chun’an had 51,000 households, 337,000 inhabitants, and a person-household ratio of 6.6. But the records only include the numbers for “nan-ding” (male adults), “fu-kou” (female adults), and “xiao-kou” (underage children), but no “nan-xiao-ding” (underage male children). If we leave out the number of “xiao-kou” from that of the total population of Chun’an county, the person-per-household ratio would be 4.6, about the same as the ratio of Sui’an and Jiande counties, but still higher than the ratio of the other three counties. This means, apart from Chun’an county, the records of the other five counties probably include only the numbers of adult males and females, while completely excluding the statistics of underage males and females. This means we need to reinterpret the record indicating that the “shi-zairen-ding” (actual population) was 375,000 and the “nan-fu da-xiao ren-ding” (both male and female adults and the underage population) was 739,000 in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. Because the former number was about half of the latter, we can estimate that the former number only included the male population, an indication that the recorded population data of Yanzhou was, in fact, solely the population of adult males and females. If we add in the number for “nan xiao ding” (underage male children), the person-per-household ratio of Chun’an would increase to at least eight. Such a ratio can become the reference for the person-per-household ratio of the entire prefecture. With this, it can be estimated that the total population of Yanzhou in 1754 (Qianlong 19th year) was around 1.192 million. This would mean the annual average population growth rate from 1754 to 1820 was 3.1‰ and the population of Yanzhou in 1776 (Qianlong 41th year) around 1.276 million.

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

163

1.3 Hangzhou Fu According to Vol. 57 of Hangzhou Records edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in Qianlong 49th year (1784), Hangzhou had altogether 446,000 households, 2.075 million inhabitants, and a person-per-household ratio of 4.7. However, according to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, there were 508,000 households, 3.197 million inhabitants, and a person-to-household ratio of 6.3. This means the average annual growth rate of the population from 1784–1820 was 12.1‰. In terms of the individual counties, the population of Fuyang was 137,000; however, according to Vol. 6 of Fuyang Xian Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), the county had more than 400,000 inhabitants before the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864). Thus, we can conclude that the population statistics from Vol. 57 of Hangzhou Fu Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) were unreliable, given that they were much less than the actual numbers. The Hangzhou Fu Zhi also contained records of individual counties in the Jiaqing (1796–1820), Daoguang (1821–1850), and Xianfeng (1851–1861) periods. Although there were fluctuations in the average annual growth rate of the population from 1784 (Qianlong 49th year) to the Jiaqing and Daoguang periods, the number remained around 4‰ and did not exceed 5.8‰. Therefore, we believe that, before 1820, the average annual population growth rate was around 4‰, which means we can now estimate the population of Hangzhou in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) to be around 2.682 million. 1.4 Shaoxing Fu According to Vol. 13 of Shaoxing Fu Zhi, edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), in 1791 (Qianlong 56th year), Shaoxing, with a total of 609,000 households and 4.024 million inhabitants in its eight counties, had an average of 6.6 people per household. The ratio for the four counties in the west of Shaoxing, namely Shanyin, Kuaiji, Xiaoshan, and Zhuji, was 7.8, while the ratio for the four counties in the east, namely Yuyao, Shangyu, Shengxian, and Xinchang, was 4.7. However, the county records show that the persons-per-household ratio of Kuaji was only 4.3, and for the nearby three counties, on average, 8.4, which means the actual number of households in Kuaji was 62,000 and the number of inhabitants, 520,000, a significantly larger number than the recorded 253,000. This leads us to speculate that the recorded numbers for Shanyin, Xiaoshan, and Zhuji only included the male population. Applying the same method, we calculated the person-per-household ratios of Yuyao and Shangyu and found that at 4.7 and 3.1, respectively, they were considerably low. Using the data of Shengxian and Xinchang, which showed a ratio of 6, as a reference, we can estimate that the population of the two counties was around 951,000, more than the recorded 300,000.

164

Chapter 7

Similarly, when we calculate the population of the eight counties of Shaoxing, we divide them into two parts, the eastern distric, and the western district. The results show that the county district population ratio in 1791 was very close to that in the 1953 census. In 1791, the population of Shaoxing was around 457.9 million; then according to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, it became 539.2 million in 1820. That means the average annual population growth rate would be around 5.7‰, thereby suggesting that the prefectural population of Shaoxing in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) was around 4.205 million. 1.5 Ningbo Fu According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, the population of Ningbo fu (prefecture) was 2.355 million. However, the number declined to only 2.264 million in 1953 as a result of the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864). According to Vol. 3 of Yinxian Tongzhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in Qianlong 51st year (1786), Yinxian county had 125,000 households, 608,000 inhabitants, and a person-per-household ratio of 4.9, which falls within the reasonable range. According to the 1953 census, the population of Yinxian and Ningbo city was about 701,000, accounting for 31% of the total population of the whole province. Since modern times, the level of urbanization in Ningbo city has improved rapidly, thereby increasing its proportion when compared with the rest of the prefecture. However, Ningbo fu was the most affected region in the area by the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864). The population loss was so severe that the opening of the trade ports, which would normally have boosted the population growth, was not enough to restore the person-per-household ratio to the level before the Rebellion. If we assume that Yinxian still accounted for 31% of the whole provincial population, the total population of Ningbo fu (prefecture) would then be around 1963,000 in 1786 (Qianlong 51st year). This means the average annual population growth rate of Ningbo from 1786–1820 was about 5.4‰, and the population in Qianlong 41st year (1776) was about 1.861 million. 1.6 Chuzhou Fu According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, the population statistics of Chuzhou fu (prefecture) were within the reasonable range given that it had 227,000 households, 115,000 inhabitants, and 5.1 people per household. These numbers can be tested against the county data. According to Vol. 11 of Chuzhou Fu Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), Lishui county had 23,000 households and 174,000 inhabitants with a person-per-household ratio of 7.7 while Yunhe county had 14,000 households, 51,000 inhabitants and a person-per-household ratio of 3.6 indicating an abnormally low

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

165

person-per-household ratio. If we assume that, in 1820, the ratio was 4.5, then the population of Yunhe would be around 6.3 million. In Qianlong 41st year (1776), Qingtian county had 15,000 households and 90,000 inhabitants with a person-per-household ratio of 6. For its part, Jingning county had 9,000 households, 39,000 inhabitants, and a person-per-household ratio of 4.6. From 1776 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Jingning county was around 4.9‰. Considering that the Jingning population was largely unaffected by the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864), that growth rate can be considered the natural growth rate of the population in the county. If we assume an average annual growth rate of 5‰, we can then estimate that, in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), Qingtian and Jingning had 142,000 inhabitants, and 379,000 inhabitants together with Lishui and Yunhe. Given that, in 1953, the population of the four counties of Lishui, Qingtian, Yunhe, Jingning accounted for 40% of the total population of the whole province, we can conclude that the population of the whole Chuzhou fu was around 948,000. Based on the population growth rate of Jingning, we then know that the prefectural population would be around 862,000 in Qianlong 41st year (1776) and 1.074 million in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year). These numbers are quite close to those recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. 1.7 Quzhou Fu According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Quzhou fu (prefecture) had 167,000 households and 152,000 inhabitants, apparently incorrect figures. This is because if we assume the person-per-household ratio was 5.6, as was the case with all Zhejiang prefectures except Quzhou fu, we can estimate that the population of Quzhou, in that year, would be around 934,000. With a person-per-household ratio of 5, the population would be 834,000. Another way to calculate the population of Quzhou is based on the information recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi stating that the total population of Zhejiang was 27.441 million, 989,000 less the 26.442 million that we came up with by adding the population of all individual prefectures. If we assume that the gap is because the Quzhou population data was incomplete, we can then estimate the prefectural population would be around 1.141 million by adding 989,000 and 152,000, the latter being the population of Quzhou in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. At a person-per-household ratio of 5, the household number would be 228,000. According to Vol. 4 of Kaihua County Records edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), Kaihua county had 25,000 households and 36,000 “kou.” We notice that the recorded “kou” here did not refer to the number of people. In Vol. 5 of Kaihua County Records edited in

166

Chapter 7

Guangxu 11th year (1885), Kaihua had 30,000 households and 134,000 “hu,” indicating a person-per-household ratio of 4.5. These figures were really what “hu” and “kou” mean. In 1953, Kaihua had a population of 138,000, accounting for 11.9% of the prefectural population. Using this proportion as a reference, we can conclude that, in 1795 (Qianglong 60th year), Quzhou had about 214,000 inhabitants. This means from 1795 to 1820, the average annual growth rate of households was 2.5‰. From this data, we can estimate that, in Qianlong 41st year (1776), Quzhou had 204,000 households and 1.02 million inhabitants, assuming a person-per-household ratio of 5. 1.8 Jinghua Fu According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Jinghua fu (prefecture) had 568,000 households and 2.55 million inhabitants, meaning there were 4.5 people per household, a reasonable number. In terms of the individual counties, only Yiwu’s numbers need further examination. According to Vol. 1 of Yiwu County Records edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in 1785 (Qianlong 50th year), Yiwu had 58,000 households and 514,000 inhabitants, meaning there was a person-per-household ratio as high as 8.8. With this data, it is difficult to determine whether the problem is with the household number or the population number. It is known that, in 1953, Yiwu accounted for 12.2% of the population of Jinhua. Considering this ratio, the population of Jinghua in 1785 would be 4.213 million, a number significantly higher than that of 1820. However, if we assume the average annual growth rate from 1785 to 1820 was 5‰, Yiwu would have 69,000 households in 1820, accounting for 12.2% of the total households that year. The result of this calculation aligns with the statistics of the 1953 census. Therefore, we can conclude that the number of households, rather than the population figures, was correct in Yiwu County Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). With an average annual growth rate of 5‰, the population of Jinghua in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) would then be 2.048 million. 1.9 Other Prefectures Due to a lack of data, we cannot conduct a detailed analysis of the population statistics of the three prefectures of Huzhou, Wenzhou (including Yuhuanting), and Taizhou. Therefore, tentatively, we assume that the relevant records in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi are accurate. So, assuming an average annual rate of 4‰–5‰, we arrive at the following estimations regarding the prefectural population of Zhejiang in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) (See Appendix 6).

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

167

1.10 Summary It was recorded in Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the total population of Zhejiang province, which stood at 19.365 million inhabitants, was lower than our estimate (See Appendix 6) by 2.941 million. The records of Hubu Qing Ce show that the population of Zhejiang in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 27,411, a figure consistent with the total population number (the number of “kou”) of Zhejiang in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. In fact, Jiaqing Yitong Zhi recorded a wei-suo population of 59,000 even though the number is not available in Hubu Qing Ce. 2

Jiangsu

During the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), Jiangsu was divided into Jiangning buzhengsi and Jiangsu buzhengsi. Jiangning buzhengsi included Jiangning fu that used to be called Yingtian fu in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), and the prefectures north to the Yangtze River, with Nanjing as its capital. Jiangsu buzhengsi, meanwhile, apart from Jiangning fu, consisted of all the prefectures south of the Yangtze rivers with Suzhou as the capital. Compared with Zhejiang, the population data of Jiangsu is much questionable, leaving much room for analysis and adjustment. Here is a breakdown of the demographics of individual prefectures. 2.1 Jiangning Fu In 1820, Jiaqing Yitong Zhi only recorded the population of Jiangning fu, which was only 1.874 million inhabitants. According to Vol. 14 of Jiangning Fu Zhi, in 1809 (Jiaqing 14th year), there were 2.411 million “min-ding-nan” (adult males) and 205,000 “jun-ding-nan” (military males) across the counties (See Table 11). The totality of the “min-ding-nan” population was only 2.07 million, 340,000 less than the 2.41 million recorded in Vol. 14 of Jiangning Fu Zhi. If we add these 340,000 people to the population of Jiangpu and Liuhe while considering Shangyuan and Jiangning as the metropolitan counties of Nanjing, we can come up with county-prefecture population proportions that are significantly close to those in the 1953 census. This means what was noted as “ding-nan” in Jiangning in 1809 was not a tax unit; rather it was a population unit. After comparing the respective records in Jiangning Fu Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Da Qing Hui Dian edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), and Hubu Qing Ce, we find that Jiangning buzhengsi used another expression for people, “ren-kou” when documenting the

168 Table 11

Chapter 7 Jiangning population figures from 1809–1953

County

1809

1953

min-ding-nan jun-ding-nan sum (male civilian (male army population) population) Shangyuan 592,486 Jiangning 707,849 Jurong 336,968 Lishui 159,186 Gaochuan 156,535 Jiangpu 48,601 Liuhe 69,667 sum 2,071,292

16,289 62,611 821 0 0 18,346 106,708 204,775

Proportion Totality of proportion (%) population (%)

608,775 26.7 770,460 33.9 337,789 14.8 159,186 7.0 156,535 6.9 66,947 2.9 176,375 7.7 2,276,067 100.0

1,091,575 535,717 335,547 222,478 276,994 146,626 436,383 3,045,320

35.8 17.6 11.0 7.3 9.1 4.8 14.3 100.0

Sources: Vol. 14 of Jiangning Fu Zhi, Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Renkou Tongji Ziliao Huibian (1949–1985) (A Collection of Population Census of People’s Republic of China (1949–1985)). Beijing: Zhongguo Caizheng Jingji Chubanshe (China Financial & Economics Publishing House), 1988

population. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the total population of Jiangsu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 26.458 million, including 16.03 million from Jiangsu buzhengsi. It is noteworthy that “ren-ding,” in that book, equals “ren-kou” in the records. The following calculation will illustrate that the remaining 10.428 million was the adult male (ding-nan) population of Jiangning buzhengsi. According to Da Qing Hui Dian (Ming Collected Statutes) edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), the total population of Jiangsu was 37.844 million in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year). That number, minus the population of Jiangsu buzhengsi, would be the population of Jiangning buzhengsi. That means the population figure is 21.814 million, which is 2.09 times the corresponding number documented in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. In the same way, we find that, according to Hubu Qing Ce, the population figure of Jiangning buzhengsi in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), which is 23.48 million, is, indeed, 2.25 times the corresponding number documented in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. Therefore, we can conclude that both the “kou” in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi and the “ding-nan” in Jiangning Fu Zhi, edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) do not refer to a part, and not the entire population. A possible explanation as to why, in Jiangning buzhengsi, the adult male population (under “nan-ding”) is 2.13 times the entire population recorded

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

169

in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi is that the sum of the local population across Jiangsu in Xiangfeng 1st year (1851) was close to the totality of the Jiangsu population, which was 44.33 million, recorded in Hubu Qing Ce. This ratio means for each adult male; there was 0.8 adult female and 0.33 underage children. If we assume that a family had two adult males, this would mean a family had 1.6 women and 0.66 underage children. Hence a reasonable person-per-household ratio of 4.26. Therefore, we can conclude that, here, “ding-nan” means males of all ages, rather than adult men only. As demonstrated previously, the population sex ratio can be used to estimate the population. If we assume a male-female ratio of 110, in 1809, Jiangning fu would have 4.994 million people. In addition, According to Jiangning Fu Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year), there were 1,889,286 adult males (min-ding-nan) and 175,089 military males ( jun-ding), suggesting that until 1809, the average annual growth rate of adult males was 7.2‰, military males 4.6‰. At a rate of 4.6‰, by 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Jiangning fu would have reached 5.25 million. Based on the same presumption that “ding-nan” in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi actually referred to the male population, we can estimate that the total population would be 357,000, assuming a male-female ratio of 110. The 205,000 military male population missing from the record became 411,000 by Jiaqing 25th year (1820), bringing the total of the civilian and military population to 3,988,000, a figure that is 1,264,000 less than the corresponding number in Jiangning Fu Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). We suspect that after deducting the military population, the remaining 853,000 was the population of Nanjing city. The dispersion of the 2,616,000 adult males (nan-ding), recorded in Jiangning Fu Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) at the county level, which also included the adult male population of Nanjing city, was consistent with the dispersion in the 1953 census. These figures, therefore, confirm our suspicion. 2.2 Yangzhou Fu According to Vol. 20 of Yangzhou Fu Zhi in 1808 (Jiaqing 13th year), in 1770 (Qianlong 40th year), there were 2,421,000 inhabitants in Yangzhou, and, in 1808, 3,474,000. However, in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the population was only 3,268,000, a number that is 200,000 inhabitants less than the 1808 number. If we assume that from 1770 to 1808 and from 1770 to 1820, the average annual growth rate of Yangzhou’s population was 9.5‰ and 6‰, respectively, we can determine that the 1820 number was a correction of the 1808 number. If we assume a ding-per-household rate at 2.13, the population in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year 1775), 1803 (Jiaqing 8th year), and 1820 (Jiaqing 20th year) would, respectively, be around 51.57 million, 7.4 million, and 69.661 million—

170

Chapter 7

the latter two figures being much more than the 5.904 million in 1953. While Yangzhou fu was not affected by the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864), it was affected by the recession of the salt and the canal economy, which led to a significant reduction of the population in the western urban areas, including Yangzhou and Yizheng. In terms of the county data of 1808 (Jiaqing 13th year), it will be imperative to further scrutinize the data of Taizhou and Dongtai (including Dafeng area). In 1808, the two counties accounted for as much as 35% of the total county population, and that proportion became 33.4% in the 1953 census, a considerably close figure. However, if we assume a ding-per-household ratio of 2.13, the total population of the two counties would be 258.8 million in 1808 and 197.4 million in 1953, which translates to a significant decrease instead of an increase. Therefore, we suspect that the recorded ding numbers of Taizhou and Dongtai in 1808 were, in fact, the numbers of the whole population. Assuming that was the case, in 1808, the population of the two counties would be 1.215 million in 1808 and 1.974 million in 1953, a reasonable indication of an average annual growth rate of 3.4‰ within the 145 years. In conclusion, after we multiplied the ding population of the counties, except Taizhou and Dongtai, in 1808 by 2.13, we obtained an adjusted version of the totality of the population of these two counties. That number, plus the population figures of Taizhou and Dongtai counties, gives a total population figure of 6.016 inhabitants. With an average annual growth rate of 6‰, in 1820, the total population would be 6.113 million. Based on the data from 1770, at an average annual growth rate of 6‰, in 1820, the total population figure ought to be 6.95 million. As our estimate, we have considered the average of these two figures, which is 6.529 million, as our final estimate.1 2.3 Tongzhou and Haimen Under the jurisdiction of Tongzhou, there were three counties Taixing, Nantong, and Rugao. According to Vol. 4 of Tongzhou Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year), the population of these three counties was 591,000, including Taixing county that had only 89,251 ding, a number that became 1,051,742in the 1953 census. In 1775 (Qianlong 40th year), Taixing accounted for 15.1% of the entire fu population. However, this proportion became 25.5% in 1933 and 24.2% in 1953, respectively. If we adjust the Taixing number from 89,251 to 189,251, the proportion would then increase to 1 As to the population of the Yangzhou prefecture in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the recorded figure was 6,663,000. Our adjusted result is close to it; therefore, we keep the original figure in the appendix.

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

171

27.4%bringing the total population in the three counties under Tongzhou in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year) to 691,000. According to Vol. 2 of Rugao Xian Xu Zhi, in 1850 (Daoguang 30th year), Rugao county had 1.137 million inhabitants and 1.172 million in Tongzhi 4th year (1865), which means the average annual population growth rate was 1.9‰ between 1850 and 1865. According to Vol. 4 of Rugao Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), the “shi-zai-nan-ding” (actual male ding) in 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year) was 770,000. The gender ratio was further explained: “in the urban areas, there are generally three males and two females, the female record has been omitted,” leading us to conclude that the whole county population would be about 1.28 million with an average annual growth rate of 2‰ since 1865. At this rate, it can also be inferred that the population of Rugao county in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was about 1.07 million. After adjustment, in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year), Rugao county accounted for 34.6% of the total Tongzhou population. In 1933, it accounted for 38.2%.2 Therefore, in 1933, the population of Tongzhou in 1820 ought to be 2.801 million. However, the records of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi show that the population was only 983,000. That year, we understand that there was one ding in every 2.8 people (ren-kou), which means in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year), Tongzhou would have had 1.934 million inhabitants. This would make the average annual population growth rate 8.3‰ from 1770 to 1820. This rate is unreasonably high even though it also indicates an unusually low increase rate after the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). It should be noted that these figures are unsatisfactory. Vol. 11 of Haimen Ting Tu Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908) contains records of the male and female population (nan-nv-ding-kou) in the 14 years from 1770 (Qianlong 35th year) to 1891 (Guangxu 17th year). Given that the number of male and female ding population before Qianlong 60th year was extremely small, we have decided not to consider it in our calculation. The average growth rate between the five years (4 periods) from Qianlong 60th year to Daoguang 12th year was too high and unreliable. From 1847 (Daoguang 27th year) to 1869 (Tongzhi 8th year), the male and female ding population increased from 783,000 to 847,000, accounting for an average annual growth rate of 3.4‰. Based on this rate, we can deduce that, back in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the male and female ding population of Haimen ting would have been about 720,000. However, in the records of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the “ding-kou” figure of Haimen ting was only 240,000. Therefore, it can be determined that 240,000 “ding-kou” referred only to “nan-ding”, just a portion of the population. The 2 All of the 1933 data is from Hu, H. (1935). The Distribution of Population in China With Statistics and Maps[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 1935, 2(2), 33–74.

172

Chapter 7

gap between the “nan-ding” and the actual population of the county is about 3 times the former; therefore, the recorded “nan-ding” was likely the adult males, excluding the underage male population. With an average annual growth rate of 4‰, back in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the actual population of the Haimen ting would be about 570,000. 2.4 Haizhou Fu The “ding-kou” number of Haizhou in 1820, as recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, is only half of the number in Vol. 15 of Haizhou Zhili Zhou Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), which indicates that Jiangning buzhengsi only reported the male ding population. If we assume that, excluding the male population, the rest of the population was female, the sex ratio would then be 107. According to Haizhou Zhili Zhou Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), from 1775 (Qianlong 40th year) to 1804 (Jiaqing 9th year), the average annual growth rate of the male population in the two counties of Ganyu and Muyang was 3.9‰. In addition, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), Haizhou had a total of about 1.03 million inhabitants. It is estimated that the population of Haizhou in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was about 1.226 million, accounting for an average annual population growth rate of 5.7‰ until 1953. 2.5 Xuzhou Fu and Huaian Fu Xuzhou fu (prefecture) only had population records for two counties, Suqian and Pizhou. If we assume that all the data was from 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), then the population of the two counties would be 910,000. However, records in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi indicate that Xuzhou fu had 184 million “ding.” Of course, this data is unrealistic, considering we know Suqian and Pizhou accounted for half of the population. In 1953, Suqian and Pizhou (including half of Xinyi county) accounted for 27% of the total population of the whole prefecture. Given this ratio, in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Xuzhou would have had 3.37 million inhabitants indicating an average annual population growth rate of 3.7‰ till 1953. If we assume an average annual growth rate of 3‰, back in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population would have been 29.54 million. Considering that the population composition of Huai’nan was close to that of Xuzhou and assuming the same growth rate, we can deduce that the population of Huai’an was 3 million in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) and 2.63 million in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 2.6 Suzhou Fu and Other Prefectures Considering that Vol. 13 of Suzhou Fu Zhi, edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), has both records of “ren-ding” and nan-ding and nv-kou, we can

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

173

determine that the population figures in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi are not under the “ren-kou” category. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Suzhou had 5.915 million inhabitants. From 1810 to 1830, the average annual growth rate of the male ding in Suzhou was 3.3‰, which leads us to estimate that in 1776, the population of Suzhou was 5.111 million. Based on this approach, it is possible to determine the population figures of other prefectures (See Appendix 6). Unfortunately, due to a lack of data at the county level, we can only estimate the population of Songjiang fu based on the information of Suzhou. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Songjiang was 2.642 million, and by estimation, we understand that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), Songjiang had 2.277 million inhabitants. 2.7 Summary According to Vol. 19 of Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the total population of Jiangsu province was 28.808 million, less than the estimation in this section by 3,179 million. However, according to Hubu Qing Ce, the population of Jiangsu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 39.51 million, a figure that is more than the recorded figure in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi (26.458 million) by 13.052 million, and that is close to the 39.207 million estimated in this section. Therefore, we can conclude that the population figures in Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao and Jiaqing Yitong Zhi do not account for the whole population, only the male or part of the male population. 3

Anhui

Apart from Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the prefecture population of Anhui can also be found in Zhu Yunjin’s Wansheng Zhi Lue edited in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year) and which contains records of “tu-zhu nan-fu da-xiao min-tun ren-ding” (the local male, female, underage male, and underage female population) in 1819 (Jiaqing 24th year). As noted in my Qing Dynasty, Vol. 5 of Chinese Population History (Fudan University Press, 2001), records of Hubu Qing Ce show that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Anhui province had 35.066 million inhabitants, which is more than the estimate I made after adjusting the figures in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi by 2.998 million. Presumably, the difference is caused by the non-inclusion of the military population. In fact, Jiaqing Yitong Zhi had two figures for the provincial population—34.101 million recorded under the provincial totality, and 28.354 million, the sum of all the prefectural population. According to Wansheng Zhi Lue, the sum of all the county population was 33.816 million,

174

Chapter 7

which included the people listed under the “tun” (military) households. This sum is larger than the totality recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, making it obvious that the figure in Wansheng Zhi Lue included the military population, hence, a more reliable source than Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. Therefore, we estimate the population of Anhui province in 1820 based on data from Wansheng Zhi Lue. It is worth mentioning that the average annual growth rate of the population in the middle of the Qing Dynasty, which we came up with by analyzing the population data obtained from the local histories or gazetteers, has laid the foundation for our restoration of the population data at the prefectural level in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). It must be pointed out that the local histories or gazetteers, like Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, also did not include the “tun” data. Therefore, this section only calculates the population growth rates instead of the actual population. 3.1 Ningguo Fu According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Ningguo fu had 3.433 million inhabitants in 1820, but the data included no household figures. However, according to Vol. 18 of Ningguo Fu Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in 1805 (Jiaqing 10th year), Xuancheng county had 242,000 households, 1.017 million inhabitants with an average of 4.2 people per household. It also mentioned that Xuancheng county accounted for 43.1% of households and 33.9% of the population of the entire prefecture. The household percentage is relatively the same as in the 1953 census, indicating that the recorded Xuancheng household figure was relatively accurate even though the number of inhabitants could be lower. Using the person-per-household ratio of the other counties as a reference, we can determine that Xuancheng population was around 1.3 million. The recorded population figures of Xuancheng in Wansheng Zhi Lue is 1.331 million—an indication that our adjustment is correct. Using the same method, we also adjusted the population of Nanling county in 1779 (Qianlong 44th year) as recorded in Vol. 18 of Ningguo Fu Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). We highly suspect that the recorded household figures for the three counties of Ningguo, Taiping, and Jingde in Ningguo Fu Zhi were fabrications, given that they were far from consistent. However, we also note that these figures are close to the recorded population figures in Wansheng Zhi Lue edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). By adding all the county figures (including the figures of Xuancheng and Nanning after adjustment), we can determine that the population of Ningguo fu in 1805 (Jiaqing 10th year) and 1779 (Qianlong 44th year) was 3.169 million and 2.656 million respectively. This indicates that the average annual growth rate of the population in these two periods was 6.8‰ and 5.3‰, respectively.

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

175

3.2 Guangde Fu The recorded population of Guangde fu in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi was 551,000. However, according to Vol. 15 of Guangde Zhou Zhi in the Qianlong period (1736–1796) and Vol. 16 of Guangde Zhou Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1790 (Qianglong 58th year) and 1820, Guangde county had 285,000 and 305,000 inhabitants, respectively. It should be noted that under the jurisdiction of Guangde fu, there were Guangde county and Jianping county. The records of Guangde Zhou Zhi in the Qianlong period (1736–1796) and the Guangxu period (1875–1908) indicate that, in 1879 (Guangxu 5th year), Jianping county accounted for 38.3% of the population of Guangde fu, and 39.9% in 1953. We understand that with an average population ratio of 39%, the total population of Guangde fu was around 466,000 in 1790 and 500,000 in 1820, thereby indicating an average annual population growth rate from 1790 to 1820 5.6‰. 3.3 Taiping Fu According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Taiping fu had 1.479 million inhabitants. However, only the data of Fanchang county, among the three counties under Taiping, appears to have been used. According to Vol. 5 of Fanchang Xian Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), in Qianlong 60th year (1795), Fanchang had 53,162 households and 302,541 “ding,” that is, 5.6 “ding” per household, meaning that the “ding” in the record referred to the inhabitants. The book also contains the figures of households and inhabitants in 1813 (Jiaqing 18th year) and 1825 (Daoguang 5th year) based on which determine that from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1825 (Daoguang 5th year), the average annual population growth rate was only 1.4‰. This leaves doubts as to the credibility of the data. If we assume that the population of Fanchang county in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) was accurate and that the percentages of the three counties under Taiping with regard to the population of the entire prefecture, was relatively the same as in the 1953 census, then the total population of Taiping in 1795 would be 1.301 million. Then, from 1795 to 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the average annual population growth rate of Taiping would be 5.1‰. 3.4 Hezhou Fu According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Hezhou fu had 428,000 inhabitants. In contrast, it was recorded in Vol. 7 of Zhili Hezhou Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1809 (Jiaqing 16th year) that, Hezhou had 268,000 inhabitants. This figure probably excluded the population of the mountain areas. It was also mentioned in the records that, in 1755 (Qianlong 20th year),

176

Chapter 7

there were 70,000 households and 275,000 inhabitants in Hezhou, meaning there were 3.9 people per household. If we use our baseline and assume a person-per-household rate of 5, the population would then be around 350,000. If we use Sizhou as a reference and set the person-per-household rate at 4.3, the population would then be around 301,000. Consequently, the average annual growth rates of the population from 1755 to 1820 would then be around 3.1‰ and 5.4‰, respectively. 3.5 Sizhou Fu It is likely that Vol. 5 of Sizhou Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796) only accounted for the population Sizhou county, excluding the three counties under its jurisdiction. According to the records, in 1777 (Qianlong 42nd year), Sizhou had 136,000 households and 588,000 inhabitants, that is, 4.3 people per household. Using the 1953 census as a reference, we can assume that Sizhou county (including Sizhou county and Sihong county) accounted for 45% of the population of the entire prefecture. Based on this, we can estimate that in 1777, the population of Sizhou was around 1.307 million. Meanwhile, the recorded population of the prefecture in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi was 1.569 million. This means the average annual population growth rate during the 43 years was 4.3‰. 3.6 Summary To sum up, except for Huizhou fu, we can set the average annual population growth rate of the five Ningguo prefectures and the other Anhui prefectures from 1776 to 1820 at 5‰. We set the rate of Huizhou at 3‰ because the region was relatively small but densely populated, and a considerable proportion of the population traveled to other regions for trade and business. See Appendix 6 for the complete data. According to Vol. 19 of Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the total population of Anhui province was 27.567 million, a figure that is 4.223 million less than the estimated 31.79 million in this section. Meanwhile, the records of Hubu Qing Ce show that the population of Anhui province in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 35.065 million, that is, 965,000 less than the 34.1 million documented in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, and 4.142 million less than our estimation of 39.207 million in this section. 4

Jiangxi

Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908) contains records of the county population of Jiangxi in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), 1802

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

177

(Jiaqing 7th year), 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) and 1869 (Tongzhi 8th year). The analysis of this section is mainly based on the data from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) and 1821 (Daoguang 1st year) and with reference to the records of 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year). Jiaqing Yitong Zhi contained both the figures of people and households; however, the household figures only accounted for prefectural areas, excluding wei-suo (garrison) districts. After presenting five years of data, Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908) also included the figures of both civilian and the military households and the population of individual prefectures, and clearly pointed out that the army population, before the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), were unaccounted for: “this book does not include more than half of the army population from the Qianlong period (1736–1796) to the Xianfeng period (1851–1861).” The book also mentioned that the data in the book was “only based on the records from 1869 (Tongzhi 8th year)” and, therefore, cannot be used for analysis. Considering that the army households and population in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) are unaccounted for, we mostly rely on the civilian data when calculating the prefectural population growth. Thereafter, we add the army household and population figures in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi to obtain the prefectural figures. That leads us to estimate the total population of 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) and 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), based on which we estimate the prefectural population in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), using the average annual growth rate. 4.1 Nanchang Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Nanchang had 518,000 households and 2.351 million inhabitants with an average of 4.5 people per household. However, in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the records indicate 712,000 households, 4.631 million inhabitants, and an average of 6.5 people per household, while in the Jiaqing Yitong Zhi records indicate 718,000 households, 4.676 million inhabitants, and 6.5 persons per household. If we add the military population to the current data from 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), we obtain numbers that are very close to those in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. It is worth mentioning that the person-per-household ratio of Nanchang appeared unreasonable given that it is abnormally high. First, the ratio of Xinjian county in 1821 was as high as 14, but only 3.4 for Jinxian county. Second, from 1782 to 1821, in the eight counties under Nanchang fu, the natural growth rate of the new two counties, Nanchang and Xinjian, looked significantly high, thereby considerably raising the natural growth rate of the whole fu. Furthermore, the growth rates of these two counties stagnated from

178

Chapter 7

1821 (Daoguang 1st year) to 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), with the records failing to explain the stagnation. A possible explanation and adjustment can be made with reference to the data of 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) and the 1953 census. First, the comparison of the 1391 and 1953 data reveals the proportions of the population of at least six counties, Nanchang, Xinjian, Fengcheng, Jinxian, Jingan, and Wuning, against the whole fu did not fluctuate much, even with over five centuries of development and changes. Within these five centuries, there was the siege of Nanchang at the turn of the dynasties from Ming to Qing and the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864). However, after a long period of peace and recuperation, the trend of regional population change appears to be the same. Second, compared with the data of 1391 and 1953, the data of Xinjian county in 1782 shows the most significant divergence. In 1782, Xinjian county accounted for 22% of the whole prefectural population, but the proportion increased to 34% in 182, to 36% in 1821. The unusually high increase indicates that the Xinjian data is not entirely reliable. Therefore, the population data of Nanchang in the mid-Qing Dynasty can be adjusted as follows: if we set the person-per-household rate of Xinjian in 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year) at 5.5, the total population number of Nanchang fu would drop to 3.052 million. By the same principle, we modified the Xinjian population data in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), causing it to drop to 3.579 million. After the adjustment, we find that the population of the whole province in these two years was much smaller than previously documented, while, of the entire province, only proportions of the population of Nanchang, Xinjian and, Fengcheng counties were closer to data recorded in 1953. In 1782 and 1821, Yining accounted for 7.4% and 6% of the total prefectural population, much lower than the 10% in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) and the 16.3% in 1953. This means most of the Hakka people and migrants from Hubei and Nanfeng, who moved to Yining fu in the early Qing Dynasty, were not counted in. According to our estimation, the migrant population accounted for about 20% of the total population, meaning that the whole population of Yinning in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) was around 300,000. The average annual population growth rate of the six prefectures and counties, including Yining, but excluding Nanchang and Xinjian, would then be 5.6‰ from 1782 to 1802, 2.5‰ from 1802 to 1821, and 4.1‰ from 1782 to 1821. After including the unaccounted-for population of Yining, we determine that the civilian population of Nanchang would be around 3.702 million. Furthermore, with the addition of the 53,000-army population recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Nanchang would have a total population of 3.702 million. At an average annual population growth rate of 4.1‰,

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

179

we estimate that, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the total population of Nanchang was around 3.136 million. 4.2 Nankang Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875– 1908), Nankang had 161,000 households and 748,000 inhabitants, which makes 4.6 people per household. The household and population figures are considerably close to the ones recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, meaning that these two books used similar systems of calculation. However, in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), these three figures became 207,000, 1.284 million, and 6.2 respectively, which seems incredible. As for the county data, the figures of Jianchang county (now Yongxiu county) are most obviously wrong: According to the recorded figures, from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), the average annual population growth rate of Jianchang was as high as 24‰, and, by 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the rate was 14‰—still extremely high. However, in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the recorded figure of inhabitants dropped by more than half. Therefore, we suspect that all the data about the county, after the Qianlong period (1736–1796), comprised of the person-per-household ratios of 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), and 1821 (Daoguang 1st year) and it was 4.1, 5.5 and, 6.2 respectively. If we assume that the person-per-household ratios of 1821 (Daoguang 1st year) and 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) were the same, the whole prefectural population would be around 951,000 inhabitants in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year). This means from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1821, the average annual growth rate of the population was 6.2‰. After adding the army population, we estimate that the population of Nankang fu in 1821 was around 967,000 and 732,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 4.3 Jiujiang Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1781 (Qianlong 46th year), Jiujiang fu had 169,000 households, 889,000 inhabitants, and an average of 5.3 people per household. However, in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the data was 212,000 households, 1.057 million inhabitants, and an average of 5 people per household. It was recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi that Jiujiang fu had 224,000 households, 1.235 inhabitants, and 5.5 people per household. After we add the army population to the population numbers in Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), we can come up with results that are close to the recorded figures in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. Even so, the number of inhabitants recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi is

180

Chapter 7

still unusually big. While the number of army households in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi was only 12,246, the recorded number of inhabitants was 170,770. The unusually high person-per-household ratio of the army population in Jiujiang was caused by the lack of complete data of the households in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. From 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year) and to 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the average annual population growth rates of Jiujiang were 6.7‰ and 1.6‰ respectively. The slowing down of the population growth, as indicated by the statistics, was caused by relatively fast growth in household numbers but very slow population growth in Hukou county in 1821. The person-per-household ratio of Hukou county in 1802 was 5.2. At this ratio, we can determine that the whole population in the prefecture was around 1.128 million, translating to an average annual population growth from 1782 to 1821 of 5.8‰. After accounting for the army population, we can determine that in Daoguang 1st year (1821), Jiujiang fu had 1.299 million people, and in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), it had 999,000 people. 4.4 Ruizhou Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Ruizhou fu had 158,000 households, 755,000 inhabitants, and an average of 4.8 people per household. These figures, in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), became 189,000, 1.017 million, and 5.4 respectively. With regard to the county level, in 1782, Shanggao county only had 4.1 people per household and a population of slightly over 1/3 that of Xinchang county. However, the records also show that, in 1953, the population of Shanggao slightly surpassed that of Xinchang. In 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), Shanggao had 49,000 households, 244,000 inhabitants, and an average of 5 people per household, while Xinchang county had 58,000 households, 264,000 inhabitants, an average of 4.6 people per household. Considering that the discrepancies in terms of the numbers of households are not significant, it is likely that the documentation mistakes of the Qianlong period (1736–1796) were corrected by then. However, records show that the population of Shanggao in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year) and 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) was less than 100,000. It is, therefore, likely that the error from the Qianlong period (1736–1796) was repeated here. If we adjust the numbers according to the proportional relationship between the population of Jiaqing and Xinchang in 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), we can determine that the population of Shanggao county in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) was 209,000, and, in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), it was 259,000. Records show that in Qianlong 47th year (1782), Gao’an county had 4.9 people per household, but in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year) it had 6.5. The growth is too rapid to be believable. Therefore, in our calculation, we assume that the person-per-household rate was still 4.9 in 1821.

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

181

According to Xinchang Xian Zhi, edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), there were 49,000 original inhabitants in 1785 (Qianlong 55th year), including 241,000 women. Records from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) contain numbers that are significantly close to those documented in Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi, edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908). Therefore, in 1782, Ruizhou had altogether a population of 884,000 inhabitants, and in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), it had a population of 1.026 million inhabitants. This means from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the average annual growth rate of the civilian population was 3.8‰. We also know that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the army population of Ruizhou fu was 13,000. This number, plus the civilian population, makes a total of 1.03 million, a figure extremely close to the 1.031 million recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. Assuming that the average annual growth rate was 3.8‰, we then can estimate that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population of Ruizhou fu was 879,000. 4.5 Raozhou Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Raozhou fu had 290,000 households, 1.44 million people, and an average of 5 people per household while in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), it had 323,000 households, 1.777 million inhabitants and an average of 5.5 per household. The numbers from 1821 are the same as in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, so after adding the military population, we can determine that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), Raozhou fu had 1.431 million inhabitants. 4.6 Guangxin Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Guangxin had 61,000 households, 1.067 million inhabitants, and an average of 4.1 people per household. However, in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the records indicate 375,000 households, 1.451 million inhabitants, and an average of 3.9 persons per household. As for the person-per-household rate, while six other counties had reasonable numbers, Shangrao and an average of only 1.7. In 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) and 1953, Shangrao accounted for about 25% of the population of Guangxin fu, but only 17% in 1782. At a rate of 25%, we can determine that in 1782, the population of Shangrao county was around 295,000, the whole prefecture 1,180,000. As the recorded population numbers of four counties of Shangrao, namely Shangyao, Guangfeng, Geyang, and Hengfeng, were either incredibly low or high and did not seem reliable, we consider the data of three counties, namely Yushan, Guixi, and Qianshan, the average annual population growth rates are 5.9‰ and 6.7‰. Assuming a growth rate of 6‰, we can determine that in

182

Chapter 7

1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Guangxin had 1.472 million civilians, and together with the army population, a total of 1.485 million inhabitants while in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was 1.141 million. The recorded total population of Guangxin in 1820 was about 14.58 million in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, a figure that is considerably close to the above estimate. 4.7 Yuanzhou Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Yuanzhou fu had 132,000 households, 615,000 inhabitants, and an average of 4.7 people per household while in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), it had 164,000 households, 769,000 inhabitants and an average of 4.7 people per household. At the county level, records show that, in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), the person-per-household ratio of Fenyi and Pingxiang was only 3.7, while that of Wanzai county was as high as 7.3. We know that in 1953, Wanzai county accounted for 16.5% of the total population of the four counties, and in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), the county accounted for 18.3% of the total households and 28.7% of the total population. Therefore, it is clear that the number of households in Wanzai in 1782 was accurate, while the number of inhabitants was incorrect. Another clue is, we know that in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), Yichun had an average of 4.2 people per household, while Wanzai had as many as 7 people per household on average. If we assume a person-per-household ratio of 5, the total population of Yuanzhou fu would then be around 705,000. From 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1821, the average annual population growth rate would then be 3.5‰. Therefore, adding the army population would bring the total population of Yuanzhou fu in 1821 to about 722,000. At this growth rate, we can estimate that back in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was about 619,000. 4.8 Linjiang Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in Qianlong 47th year, Linjiang fu had 218,000 households, 1.113 million inhabitants, and an average of 5.1 people per household. However, in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the statistics changed to 253,000 households, 1.271 million inhabitants, and an average of 5 people per household. With regard to counties, Qingjiang County, from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1821, had an average annual population growth rate as high as 8.5‰ while the rates of three counties, Xingan,3 Xinyu, and Xiajiang, only had 1.7‰, 1.1‰ and 3 Translator’s note: Written as 新淦, now as 新干.

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

183

0.9‰ respectively. Records show that, in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the household numbers of the aforementioned three counties grew slightly, while that of Qingjiang shrank by 70,000 to 349,000, meaning a lower but reliable person-per-household ratio of 5. Therefore, it seems the mistakes in the data of Qingjiang county in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year) were corrected. If we assume an average person-per-household ratio of 4.4, the population of Qingjiang county in 1821 would be 329,000, and the total civilian population of entire prefecture would be 1.194 million, which translates to an average annual population growth rate of 1.8‰ from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1821. Together with the army population, the total Qingjiang prefectural population would be 1.202 million, and at an annual growth rate of 1.8‰, we estimate that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the Qingjiang prefectural population was 1.108 million. 4.9 Ji’an Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Ji’an fu had 576,000 households, 2.508 million inhabitants, and an average of 4.3 people per household. However, in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the number of households increased to 622,000, the population increased to 2.877 million, and the person-to-household average rose to 4.6. In 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), the person-per-household ratio among 8 of the 10 counties under Ji’an fu was around 5. Of the 8 counties, Jishui had the lowest ratio of 2.5, while Wan’an had the second-lowest ratio of 3. We know that in 1953, Jishui accounted for 11.4% of the total prefectural population, while Wan’an accounted for 6.5%. If we assume a person-per-household ratio of 5, then we can estimate that the population of Jishui was around 260,000, thereby accounting for about 10% of the whole prefectural population—a ratio close to that in the 1953 census. By applying the same adjustment principle, we can estimate that Wan’an had about 11% of the whole prefectural population. The problem with Wan’an county data likely lies in the unreasonably high “hu” (household) number, not the population number. It is also evident that the proportion of the Ji’an population against the adjusted prefectural number was 7%—a ratio significantly close to the one in the 1953 census. Therefore, we determine that the population of Ji’an in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) was about 2.66 million. In 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the number of people in Wan’an County was only 100,000, almost half of the 205,000 in 1802, even though the actual number ought to surpass that of 1802. If we assume that the population was 230,000, the prefectural civilian population would be around 3.007 million, meaning the annual population growth ratio from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to

184

Chapter 7

1821 (Daoguang 1st year) was 3.2‰. If the army population is calculated, then the Ji’an prefectural population in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year) would have been around 3.104 million and 2.684 million in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 4.10 Jianchang Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Jianchang fu had 256,000 households, 1.164 million inhabitants, and an average of 4.5 people per household meanwhile 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), it had 281,000 households, 1.469 million inhabitants and an average of 5.2 people per household. At the county level, it appears that after the Qianlong period (1736–1796), the population data of Guangchang county was a fabrication. Therefore, with the exception Guangchang, we find that from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), the average annual population growth rate of Jianchang was 4.1‰, and from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), it was 2.9‰. This is a reasonable growth rate in comparison with that of nearby prefectures, including Ji’an, Fuzhou, and Ningdu. At this ratio, we can determine that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Jianchang fu had about 1.2956 million civilians. If the army population is included, the whole prefectural population would be around 1.314 million, meaning that back in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the prefectural population would have been about 1.157 million. 4.11 Fǔzhou Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Fǔzhou fu had 362,000 households, 1.459 million inhabitants, and an average of 4 people per household whereas in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the numbers rose to 369,000 households, 1.521 million inhabitants, and an average of 4.1 people per household. It needs to be pointed out that, for unknown reasons, the proportion of either the household proportion and population figures Fǔzhou, when compared with the total prefectural figures in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), do not correspond with the 1953 census figures. In addition, the 1391 household and population figures of Fǔzhou are missing leaving us with no subjects to compare and correct the data. In 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), Fuzhou had 367,000 households, 1.502 million inhabitants, and an average of 4.1 people per household. From 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), the average annual population growth rate of Fǔzhou was 1.5‰. However, it appears that after 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), the household and population figures of Fuzhou remained, suspiciously, unchanged. Based on a 1.5‰ annual growth rate, we can estimate

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

185

that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Fǔzhou had 1.554 million civilians. If the army population is added to this number, the whole prefecture would have 1.577 million inhabitants, and in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), 1.476 million. 4.12 Nan’an Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Nan’an prefecture had 136,000 households, 552,000 inhabitants, and an average of 4 people per household. In 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the figures increased to 145,000 households, 619,000 inhabitants, and an average of 4.3 people per household. The data seems to be extremely problematic. In the aforementioned two years, in Dayu county, the person-per-household number was less than 3; in Nankang, it was only 3–4; in Chongyi, it was 6–7; while in Shangyou, it was as high as 9–11. Generally, we presume that if the person-per-household rate deviates from the baseline too much, that means the data is unreliable. The fact that throughout Qianlong period (1736–1796), the household and the population figures of Dayu and Nankang almost did not change attests to this presumption. Compared with the records of the 1953 census, it would appear that the figures of both households and inhabitants in these counties were groundless fabrications. Unfortunately, in this section, we had no justifiable grounds to correct the data of these counties, so we tentatively adopted the data from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) for our discussion. Relatively speaking, only the household numbers of Shangyou and Chongyi are useable for our discussion of the population growth in these areas. From 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the two counties’ average annual population growth rate was 3.7‰. In 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the civilian population of Nan’an was about 671,000. If the military population was included, then the prefectural population would be around 673,000. Based on an annual growth rate of 3.7%, we determine that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), Nan’an had about 569,000 people. 4.13 Ningdu Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Ningdu fu had 128,000 households, 820,000 inhabitants, and an average of 6.4 people per household while in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the number of households increased to 130,000, the number of inhabitants rose to 825,000, and the average number of people per household was 6.4. At the county level, the person-per-household ratios of the three counties under Ningdu fu were 4, 9, and 12. Considering that the gaps between them were unreasonably significant, we deem that it is impossible to

186

Chapter 7

determine the credibility of the data based solely on the household and population numbers. Comparing the numbers from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) with those in the 1953 census, we find that the household numbers were vastly different while the population numbers were close. Records show that in 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), Ningdu had 132,000 households and 832,000 inhabitants, indicating considerably minimal population growth. The data suggests that in 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), the number of households increased in Ningdu county while the number of inhabitants decreased. It is worthy to note that the numbers appear unreasonable. If we exclude the figures of Ningdu county, we find that from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), the annual average population growth of two counties grew by 1.6‰, a rate similar to that of Fǔzhou. At this rate, we can estimate that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Ningdu had about 868,000 households and 878,000 civilians. The inclusion of the military population brings the total prefectural population to 878,000. Back in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was around 818,000. 4.14 Ganzhou Fu According to Vol. 47 of Jiangxi Tongzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in Qianlong 47th year (1782), Ganzhou fu had 361,000 households, 2.042 million inhabitants, and an average of 5.7 people per household while in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the number of households rose to 392,000, the number of inhabitants became 2.415 million, and the average number of people per household was 6.2. We can infer from the data of Ganzhou in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) that, in addition to Huichang county, which had a person-per-household ratio of 8.5, the other three counties of Zhuandu, Xinfeng, and Dingnan also had abnormally high person-per-household ratios. In contrast, the ratios of the remaining counties appear normal. We can identify the problem with the Ganzhou data after comparing the population proportion of the county with that of the entire prefecture as recorded in the 1953 census. In 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), Huichang county accounted for 17.3% of the households in Gangzhou fu and 11.6% of the total population. In the 1953 census, Huichang accounted for 9.7% of the prefectural population; therefore, we can determine that the number of households was more reliable population figures. The same is true with the data of Xinfeng. In contrast to the figures of Huichang and Xinfeng, the population proportions of the three counties of Ganxian, Xindu, and Xingguo constituted a significantly higher proportion of Ganzhou fu in 1953 than in 1782. This is because, under Ganzhou fu, these three counties received the majority of immigrants

The Population of the Four Southern Provinces

187

from Fujian and Guangdong provinces. Due to the delay in household registration, for an exceptionally long time, these immigrants were not registered locally. In addition, immigrants continued arriving in these counties during the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) and the Daoguang period (1782–1850). All this might have contributed to the low recorded numbers. Setting the person-per-household ratio of Huichang and Xinfen at our baseline, we estimate that in 1782, the population of Ganzhou was less than the recorded number by 225,000, and in 1821 by 439,000. The average annual growth rates of these two counties within the two periods would then be 2.1‰ and 2.3‰, respectively. However, because a significant number of immigrants in Ganxian, Xindu, and Xinggu were unaccounted for, the population proportions of these three counties as opposed to the entire prefectural population in 1782 were, in fact,,, less than those in 1953 by 15%. We estimate about 300,000 immigrants and their descendants are missing from the records.4 After 1782, the immigration flow continued. Therefore, we would not adjust the numbers of inhabitants of Ganzhou in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) and Daoguang period (1821–1850) and just adopt the average annual growth rate of 4.3‰ in this period. With the military population (tunhu) calculated, the total Ganzhou prefectural population would be around 2.513 million in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year) and 2.071 million in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year). 4.15 Summary According to Vol. 19 of “Hu-kou,” Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao, Jiangxi province in 1782 (Qianlong 41st year) had 16.849 million inhabitants, which is 1.971 million less than the number listed in Appendix 6. In the meantime, according to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Jiangxi province had a total of 23.652 million inhabitants, more than the number listed in Appendix 6 by 1.306 million. Furthermore, the records in Hubu Qing Ce indicate that in 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), the total population of Jiangxi province was 23.729 million, a figure significantly close to the number recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. As for the prefectural figures, the example of Nanchang shows that the records in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi were far from accurate. In fact, the actual number for this one single prefecture could be smaller than the recorded number by as much as 1.04 million. We also find that the significant deviation of the 4 In my previous work, Vol. 6 of The History of Immigration in China, I mentioned that the population of Hakka immigrants in the three counties was 230,000. The problem with that figure is that, in that book, I considered the household figures from the Qianlong period (1736–1796) as the number of the entire immigrant population. That means the immigrant population was, in fact, underestimated.

188

Chapter 7

population numbers of such prefectures and regions as Nankang, Yuanzhou, Linjiang prefectures, and Jianchang town, by our estimations, could be the result of inaccuracies in the numbers of counties including Jianchang, Wanzai, Qingjiang, and Guangchang under their jurisdiction. Thus, the inaccuracy of Jiangxi population statistics was mainly due to inaccuracies in the regional statistics. After taking out these inferences, we find that while the statistics at the prefectural level in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi are not devoid of problems, they are generally reliable.

Chapter 8

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province in the Mid-Qing Dynasty G. William Skinner (1991) proves in his research that the nine volumes of Sichuan Tong Sheng Min Shu Ce in The First Historical Archives of China contain many statistical errors, including arbitrary fabrications of county-level data and other problems, all of which contrast with the population data of the 20th century. Skinner believes that by comparison, the data in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) are more credible and were obtained based on reliable surveys.1 In his research, Wang Di (1993) agrees with Skinner’s observations and comes up with the average annual population growth rate by comparing the population figures in 1812 (Jiaqing 17 year) with those in 1910 (the end of the Qing Dynasty). Wang Di believes that the population survey conducted during the Xuantong period (1909–1911) was the most reliable during the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912).2 Based on Wang’s calculation, the average annual growth rates of Sichuan’s population between 1812 and 1910 and from 1910 to 1953 was 7.6‰ and 8.6‰, respectively.3 Liu Cheng-yun (1998) has conducted detailed research on Qianlong Liushi Nianfen Sichuan Tongsheng Minshu Ce (referred to as Qianlong Min Shu Ce below) conserved in the Institute of History and Language, Academia Sinica, Taiwan China.4 The collection was compiled based on the same methodology 1 Skinner, G.W. (1991). Zhongguo Fengjian Shehui Wanqi Chengshi Yanjiu: Shi Jianya Moshi (A Study of the City in Late Feudalist China: G. William Skinner’s Model). Changchun: Jilin jiaoyu chubanshe. 2 The statistics of Xuantong 2nd year (1910) is from Wang, S. (1932–1933). Minzheng Bu Hukou Diaocha Ji Ge Jia Guji (Household Registers of Ministry of Civil Affairs and Estimates of Population). Shehui Kexue Zazhi (Social Science Journal) (compliation of selected articles). Unless stated otherwise, the statistics from the Xuantong period (1909–1911) are from this book. 3 Wang, D. (1993). Kua Chu Fengbi De Shijie: Changjiang Shangyou Quyu Shehui Yanjiu (1644–1911) (Regional Social Study of the Upper Stream of the Yangtze River). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. 4 Liu, C. (1988). Qing Qianlong Chao Sichuan Renkou Ziliao Jiantao: Shi Yu Suo Cang Qianlong Liu Shi Nian Fen Sichuan Tong Sheng Min Shu Ce De Ji Dian Guancha. In Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica (Eds.), Zhongguo Jinshi Jiazu Yu Shehui Xueshu Yantaohui Lunwenji. p. 301–328.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_009

190

Chapter 8

and process employed in assembling the nine-volume Sichuan Tong Sheng Min Shu Ce studied by Skinner (1991). Based on his research, Liu makes the following observations: First, the volume compiled in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) contains relatively fewer errors suggesting that the survey and report was reliable. Second, as indicated by the person-per-household ratios and the sex ratios in the volume, the data from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) were more reliable than those from the Daoguang period (1821–1850). Third, the suggested average annual population growth rates from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) and from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1822 (Daoguang 2nd year) are “too high, falling out of the commonly accepted range of annual population growth rates of a traditional agricultural society.” This section is mainly based on the data from Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the local histories or gazetteers, and a cross-checking with the data from the abovementioned Sichuan Tong Sheng Min Shu Ce and with those from Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. The data in the local histories or gazetteers can be divided into two systems. First, the completed household records and the population figures of the individual counties are found in Vol. 56 of Sichuan Tong Zhi, edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). The book listed the number of households in the county and the respective male and female population figures as well as the total population. It is noteworthy that the lack of significant discrepancy in the total figures and the sum of the respective parts is no proof that the sources of the data are reliable. Second, the recorded number of households and population in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) in the majority of Fu Zhi and Xian Zhi were smaller than the corresponding numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi, a suggestion that one of these two sets of records was erroneous. An indicator of errors in the figures of Sichuan Tongzhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) can be found in the larger population figures of 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) compared with the figures of 1953 census. This is because, in areas that had not been severely damaged by the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864), the population during the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) should have been smaller than the population in 1953. An indicator of errors in the population figures of local histories or gazetteers is an abnormally small population figures from the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) compared with the 1953 figures, a suggestion of an abnormally high annual growth rate from the Jiaqing period to 1953. 1

Chongqing Fu (Prefecture)

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Chongqing prefecture had 958,000 households and 3.018 million inhabitants, much more than the 690,000 households and 2.366 million inhabitants recorded in Vol. 65 of Sichuan Tong Zhi. In

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

191

contrast, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce Chongqing fu had 340,000 households and 1.333 million inhabitants, only 49.2 % and 56.4% respectively of the population statistics recorded in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). The numbers obtained from the county records (xian zhi), but for those that were copied from Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), are incredibly smaller than the numbers documented in Sichuan Tong Zhi. In short, the statistics from these four sources do not match. There were 14 counties under Chongqing fu, but only six have been discussed here. For instance, according to Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), Qijiang county had 35,000 households and 108,000 inhabitants. From 1812 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Qijiang county was 11.9‰, which is quite high, indicating that the population in 1812 could not have been bigger. However, the corresponding numbers from the other two sources are even smaller. The numbers of Jiangbeiting show the same tendency. There is no need for detailed discussion here. Dingyuan county: According to Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in 1812, Dingyuan county had 54,000 households and 169,000 inhabitants. By 1953, the county’s average annual population growth rate was 6.8‰. According to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the county had 20,000 households and 83,000 inhabitants, less than half of the 1812 population figures. Bishan county: According to Vol. 2 of Bishan Xian Zhi, in 1812, there were 24,000 “shizai chengliang huahu” (actual households paying tax in grain) and 61,000 rending. Qianlong Min Shu Ce recorded 22,000 households and 72,000 ding, figures close to those recorded in Xian Zhi, suggesting Qianlong Min Shu Ce and Bishan Xian Zhi used the same “rending” system. In terms of the number of households, the average annual population growth rate from 1795 to 1812 was 6.6‰, close to 6.7‰ from 1812 to 1953. Fuzhou (written as 涪州): According to Vol. 6 of Fuzhou Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1785 (Qianlong 50th year), Fuzhou had 58,000 “hu” and 130,000 “ding,” an average of 2.2 ding per household. In contrast, the hu and ding figures in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were 53,000, 155,000 respectively, and the average ding per household was 2.9. Although the data are slightly different, it appears that Qianlong Min Shu Ce and Fuzhou Zhi were based on the same system. According to Sichuan Tong Zhi, Fuzhou, including Wulong county, had 57,000 households and 261,000 inhabitants, an average person per household of 4.6, and a male-female ratio of 108. From the comparison, we can know that the “ding” and “dingkou” figures recorded in Fuzhou Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) and Qianlong Minshu Ce did not represent persons. If we assume that the person-per-household ratios were the same, we can estimate, using the figures from Fuzhou Zhi as reference, that the population

192

Chapter 8

in 1785 (Qianlong 50th year) was 269,000, and, using the figures from Qianlong Min Shu Ce as reference, that the population in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) was 242,000. Therefore, from 1785 to 1953 and from 1795 to 1953, the average annual growth rates of the population was 6.5‰ and 7.6‰, respectively. According to Sichuan Tong Zhi, the rate from 1812 to 1953 was 8‰. This leads us to the conclusion that the average annual population growth rate of Fuzhou from the mid-Qing Dynasty to 1953 was around 7‰. Yongchuan county: Vol. 4 of Yongchuan Xian Zhi edited in 1894 (Guangxu 20th year)contains records of “lianghu” (households who pay the land tax in crops), “huahu” (tax-paying household), and “yanhu” (individuals in a household)—the last category referring to the entire population. According to the survey results, within the 77,000 yanhu, 191,000 were male ding and 111,000 female ding. Supposing that the rational sex ratio was 110, we can determine that in 1893 (Guangxu 19th year), Yongchuan county had a population of 364,000, an average of person per household of 4.7 and that the average annual population growth rate from 1893 to 1953 was 5.3‰. According to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Yongchuan county had 16,000 households and 68,000 inhabitants, most of whom were “lianghu.” With the exception of urban Chongqing, in 1953, Chongqing fu had a population of 8.333 million. With an average annual population growth rate of 7‰, in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Chongqing fu would have, with reference to Fuzhou, had a population of 3.493 million. Assuming the growth rate was 8‰, in 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), the population of Chongqing fu was 2.46 million. By adjusting the person-per-household ratio of the population figures Chongqing fu to five, as documented in Sichuan Tongzhi (The General Records of Sichuan), we determine that the population of the prefecture in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) was 3.451 million, figures that are consistent with our estimates above. This also shows that the recorded population number in Qianlong Min Shu Ce was only half of the actual population, suggesting that the record excluded the other half that was not “lianghu.” 2

Luzhou

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Luzhou had 148,000 households and 446,000 inhabitants, figures that are consistent with the records of Vol. 65 of Sichuan Tongzhi (The General Records of Sichuan). If we assume a personper-household ratio of five, the population would be 742,000, meaning the average population growth rate by 1953 would have been 8.3‰. According to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Luzhou had 86,000 households and 307,000 inhabitants, only half of the actual population.

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

193

In terms of the individual counties, while Sichuan Tongzhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) indicated that the capital of Luzhou had 18,000 households and 43,000 inhabitants, Qianlong Minshu Ce indicated that the number of households was only 8,000 and the population was 18,000 inhabitants, less than half the figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi. According to Luzhou Jiu Xing Xiangzhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1810 (Jiaqing 15th year), the totality of “chengliang huahu” (the households paying tax in grains) and “wei chengliang huahu” (the households not paying tax in grains) was 8,000 households and 26,000 inhabitants respectively—only 44.4% and 59.2% of the corresponding numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. Therefore, Luzhou Jiu Xing Xiang Zhi also did not count in the whole population. The same issue was evident in the records of Vol. 4 of Naxi Xianzhi, edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). According to Vol. 5 of Luzhou Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1758 (Qianlong 23rd year), “xin jiu chengliang huahu,” namely new and old households paying tax on grains, in the capital of Luzhou had 9,000 households and 40,000 inhabitants. The household and population numbers in 1811 (Jiaqing 16th year) were 49,000 and 146,000, respectively, consistent with the figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi. In addition, the first figure was categorized under “hu” (household) rather than under “chengliang huahu.” In 1882 (Guangxu 8th year), the household and population figures were 108,000 and 520,000, respectively—an average of 4.7 people per household. From 1811 to 1882, the average annual growth rate of households was 11.5‰ while from 1882 to 1953, it was 10.9‰, meaning, by comparison, that the number of households in the then capital of Luzhou in 1811 (Jiaqing 16th year) should have been reliable. If we assume that the person-per-household ratio was 4.7, we can adjust the population of Luzhou in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) to 229,000. The high population of Luzhou was related to the development of modern Luzhou city. In 1953, Luzhou city had as high as 290,000 inhabitants. Even after excluding Luzhou city, the average annual population growth rate of Luzhou from 1812 to 1953 was still as high as 9.8‰. In short, we set the population of the capital of Luzhou in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) at 254,000, and the average annual population growth rate of the counties under Luzhou fu from 1812 to 1953 at 7‰. Therefore, the population of Luzhou in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) should have been around 735,000. As for the growth after 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), we determine that the annual population growth rate of the headquarters of Luzhou, at 11%, was still higher than that of the other regions. We, therefore, set the population of the capital of Luzhou at 157,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) (1776). Given that the annual growth rate was 8‰, the population of the other counties under Luzhou would have been 339,000, and the total population of Luzhou would have been 496,000.

194 3

Chapter 8

Xuyong Ting

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Xuyong ting had 70,000 households and 203,000 inhabitants. It was recorded in Vol. 65 of Sichuan Tong Zhi that Xuyong ting had 52,000 households and 164,000 inhabitants—both numbers being lower than the corresponding numbers recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. Assuming that the person-per-household ratio was 5, we determine that the population of Xuyong ting was 261,000 in 1812, and that from 1812 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 7.2‰. Assuming the same person-per-household ratio and based on the data from Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the average annual population growth rate would have been 5.3‰ by 1953. Meanwhile, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Xuyong ting had 32,000 households and 117,000 inhabitants, with an average person per household of 5. If we assume the person-per-household ratio was five, then the population would be 160,000, much less than the recorded numbers from the above two sources. If we assume an annual growth rate of 7.2% and 8%, respectively, then the population of Xuyong ting in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) and 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) would have been 282,000 and 199,000 respectively. 4

Shunqing Fu

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Shunqing prefecture had 313,000 households and 2.055 million inhabitants, an average of 6.6 people per household—much more than the respective 244,000 and 1.539 million documented in Sichuan Tong Zhi. However, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Shunqing fu only had 151,000 households and 807,000 inhabitants,5 only 61.9% and 52.5% of the respective figures accounted for in Sichuan Tong Zhi. The sex ratio of Shunqing fu in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) appears unreasonable. If we assume a ratio of 110, then the population would be 1.615 million. From 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Shunqing fu was 7.8‰. The documented population numbers in the local records of counties including Yuechi, Nanchong, Xichong, and Yingshan were significantly lower than the corresponding numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. Only the number of households of Linshui county in 1811 (Jiaqing 16th year) recorded in Vol. 2 of Linshui Xian Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850) was larger than the 5 Qianlong Min Shu Ce counted Quxian county and Dazhu county under Shunqing prefecture; however, according to Qing Shi Gao: Di Li Zhi, both should be under Suiding prefecture. This book also considers them as counties under Shunqing prefecture.

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

195

corresponding number in Sichuan Tong Zhi. However, the number of inhabitants was much smaller. At an average annual growth rate of 7.8‰, the population of Shunqing fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) would be around 1.718 million. Assuming that the average annual growth rate was 8‰, we determine that back in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population would have been 1.21 million. 5

Tongchuan Fu

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Tongchuan fu had 409,000 households and 1.802 million inhabitants, far more than the respective 311,000 and 1.35 million recorded in Sichuan Tong Zhi. In Qianlong Min Shu Ce. In other words, these two numbers were only 171,000 and 705,000, i.e., 54.8% and 52.2% of the recorded numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi, respectively. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the figures of the person-per-household ratio were credible, overall, for the entire county except for Pengxi county, which had a low population ratio. The sex ratios at the county level were generally reasonable too. The average annual population growth rate in Tongchuan fu, excluding Yanting county, from 1812 to 1953 was as high as 11.5‰. If we assume that the person-per-household ratio was 5, the rate would decline to 10.5‰. By comparison, the numbers from Qianlong Min Shu Ce were incredible. Assuming the average annual growth rate was 10‰, the population of Tongchuan fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) and in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) would have been 1.802 million and 1.163 million, respectively. 6

Zizhou

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Zizhou had 187,000 households and 954,000 inhabitants, much more than the 141,000 and 694,000 recorded in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). However, in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the recorded number of household, was only 89,000, and the population was 375,000, that is, 63% and 54% respectively of the recorded numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. The population numbers at the county level around 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) recorded in Vol. 7 of Zizhou Zhili Zhou Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908) were mostly lower than the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. It should be noted that these numbers are identical with the scenario in Shunqing fu. We suspect that records of Zizhou Zhili Zhou Zhi only included the households

196

Chapter 8

that paid tax with grain. In 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), the counties under Zizhou, with the exclusion of Neijiang county, had 35,000 households and 178,000 inhabitants. The numbers were larger than the 28,000 and 134,000 recorded in Sichuan Tong Zhi, leading to the speculation that recorded “kou” number of Neijiang referred rather to the entire population of Neijiang. With reference to the data of Neijiang, by 1953, the average annual growth rate of the population was 10.1‰. If we assume the rate was 10‰, based on the statistics of 1953, we determine that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Zizhou was about 959,000, almost the same as the recorded number in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. Based on this rate, we can estimate that the population in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) was 619,000. Using Zizhou as an example, we can deduce that the population statistics of Sichuan in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi were not completely wrong. In addition, the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi, which Skinner (1991) regarded as relatively accurate, were significantly lower than the actual numbers. 7

Baoning Fu

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Baoning had 288,000 households, and 963,000 inhabitants, more than the 212,000 households and 804,000 inhabitants recorded in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). In Qianlong Min Shu Ce, however, the number of households was 126,000, and there were 534,000 inhabitants representing, respectively, 59.3% and 66.5% of the recorded numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). From 1812 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of the counties under Baoning fu was as high as 12.3‰. Suppose we assume that the person-per-household ratio was 5, we can determine that the population of Baoning fu in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) was 1.06 million, and the average annual growth rate of the population in 1953 was 10.3‰. The number of households and population were the same in Langzhong Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) “from 1796 (Jiaqing 1st year) on” and in Sichuan Tong Zhi. The former (Langzhong Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949)) also contains the households and population in the last year of the Guangxu period (1875–1908). From 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) to the last year of the Guangxu period (1875–1908), the average annual growth rate of the population of Langzhong county was 12.7‰. As for the other counties, there is no credible data worthy of discussion. In 1910, the number of households and population in Baoning fu was 696,000 and 3.904 million, respectively. From 1910 to 1953, the average annual

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

197

population growth rate of Baoding fu was only 3.3‰. We suspect that the data of Baoning fu in the last year of the Guangxu period (1875–1908) were higher than the actual numbers and therefore have not considered them in our calculation. Assuming that the person-per-household ratio was 5 for Baoning fu in 1812, the population that year would have been 1.06 million. By 1953, the average annual growth rate of the county population would have been 10.3‰. Assuming that the average annual growth rate of the population from the mid-Qing Dynasty to 1953 was 10‰, we can, therefore, deduce that the population in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 1.197 million, and in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), it was 773,000. In short, the above studies show that regarding the numbers of households of the seven prefectures in central Sichuan, including Chongqing, the records of Vol. 65 of Sichuan Tong Zhi were basically reliable. As for the six prefectures excluding Zizhou, their population numbers should be five times the corresponding household numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. In other words, the errors with the statistics of Sichuan Tong Zhi result from the unbelievably low person-per-household ratios. The statistics of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi in the region show no pattern determining whether they were either too high or too low. Meanwhile, the numbers in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were about half the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. 8

Youyang Zhou

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Youyang zhou had 159,000 households and 462,000 inhabitants. If we assume that the person-per-household ratio was 5, then the population was 800,000. In Vol. 65 of Sichuan, Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), the household and population numbers were 118,000 and 368,000, respectively. Assuming that the person-per-household ratio was 5, then the population would only be 590,000. In Qianlong Minshu Ce, meanwhile, the number of households was 69,000, and the population was 257,000 inhabitants. That means the household number was only 58.3% compared to the number in Sichuan Tongzhi. It was recorded in Vol. 6 of Youyang Zhou Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874) that in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), there were 32,000 “chengliang huahu” (households paying tax in grains) and 54,000 ding. According to Sichuan Tongzhi, Youyang had 34,000 households and 121,000 inhabitants. That means the number of households from these two sources were close, while the numbers of ding or inhabitants failed to match. According to Youyang Zhouzhi, in 1858 (Xianfeng 8th year), “chengliang huahu” had 12,000 households and 120,000 dingkou. It also contained a record indicating the number of “hu” in

198

Chapter 8

the “chengliang huahu” record. Based on the current standards, the “hu” should be counted as several households (due to the expansion of the families). In 1861 (in Xianfeng 11th year), tuanlian (militia) was organized and a headcount was conducted to register a total of 71,000 households in the prefecture, including 328,000 inhabitants with a sex ratio as high as 143. With reference to the sex ratio of 109, which was the ratio for the “lianghu” population in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), we determine that the population of Youyang then was slightly larger than in 1812 (Jiaqing 1812). Thus, we determine that in 1861 (Xianfeng 11th year), during the establishment of militants, the officials were aiming to restore the households and population of the mid-Qing Dynasty. With reference to the corrected 1812 data, we determine that the average annual population growth rate by 1953 was 6.5‰. In 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year), the respective numbers for households and population in Youyang were 25,000 and 1,028,000, amounting to an average annual growth rate of 8.2‰ by 1953. Therefore, if we assume an average annual growth rate of 7‰, we can determine that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population was 622,000 and that at a rate of 7.5‰, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was 448,000. 9

Suiding Fu

With reference to the corrected 1812 data, we determine that the average annual population growth rate by 1953 was 6.5‰. In 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year), the respective numbers for households and population in Youyang were 25,000 and 1,028,000 people, meaning the average annual growth rate by 1953 was 8.2‰. Therefore, if we assume an average annual growth rate of 7‰, we can calculate that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population was 622,000, and with an average annual growth rate of 7.5‰, the population was 448,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). In Vol. 3 of Xinning Xian Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), in 1733 (Yongzheng 11th year), the “indigenous and in-flow migrant” (tuzhu liuyu) amounted to about 10,000 households and 55,000 inhabitants, of which only 3,000 households were “lianghu” (households who pay the land tax in crops). Qianlong Min Shu Ce recorded that Xining county had 19,000 households and 62,000 inhabitants who were supposed to be the entire population. However, at only 3.3, the person-per-household ratio was abnormally low. If we assume a ratio of 5, then the population ought to be 94,000. From 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth rate would then be 7.7 ‰. From 1733 to 1795, the rate would be 8.7‰. Contrary to expectation, it appears the population survey in Xining county since the Yongzheng period (1723–1735) was reliable.

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

199

According to Vol. 11 of Daxian Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1739 (Qianlong 4th year) and 1794 (Qianlong 59th year), there were respectively 11,345 and 11,347 “chengliang huahu” (the households paying tax in grains), and in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), 37,997 “chengliang huahu” and 64,910 “huamin” (inhabitants). The average person-per-household ratio would be less than two. The record also mentions that the “commonly known chengliang huahu equals to lianghu, and kedianzhe (in-flow migrant tenants) is also known as huahu.” Therefore, “chengliang huahu” contained both “changliang” and “huahu,” which covered the entire population. In 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), the number of “chengliang huahu” certianly increased, thereby suggesting a significant difference between the year’s “chengliang huahu” and those of 1739 (Qianlong 4th year) and 1794 (Qianlong 59th year). According to Vol. 3 of Dazhu Xian Zhi, in 1811 (Jiaqing 16th year), there were 22,795 households and 102,741 ding—figures that are consistent with the records in Qianlong Min Shu Ce but only 64.9% and 52.9% of the figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi. It was mentioned in Dazhu Xian Zhi that in “hukou qingce” (household registration book) in mid-Guangxu period (1875–1908), there were 101,685 “yanhu,” 192,285 male ding, and 132,182 female kou, that is, a total of 324,476 inhabitants. We deduce here that the number of “hu” was questionably close to the number of either kou or ding in Qianlong Min Shu Ce and Dazhu Xian Zhi. As a result, we discarded the data. If we adjust the sex ratio of the population to 110 during the Guangxu period (1875–1908), the population would then be 367,000. Also, if we consider the “mid-Guangxu period” to be the year 1890 (Guangxu 16th year), based on the 191,000 kou documented in Sichuan Tong Zhi, we determine that from 1812 to 1890, the average annual growth rate of the population was 8.4‰, and then by 1953, it remained 8.4‰. We consider these numbers reasonable. With an average annual growth rate of 8.4‰, in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Suiding fu ought to be 1.083 million, and with an average annual growth rate of 10‰, in 1774 (Qianlong 41st year), the population ought to be 699,000. 10

Taiping Ting

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Taiping ting had 26,000 households and 82,000 inhabitants—figures consistent with the statistics in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). In Qianlong Min Shu Ce, however, the number of households was 13,000 while the number of inhabitants was 53,000, that is, only 50.2% and 64.7% of the statistics of Sichuan Tong Zhi. If we assume that the average person per household was 5, then the average annual

200

Chapter 8

population growth rate from 1812 to 1953 was 8.2‰. With an average annual growth rate of 8‰, in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Taiping ting had about 140,000 inhabitants, and at a rate of 9‰, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population would have been about 96,000. 11

Kuizhou Fu

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Kuizhou had 26,100 households, 86,100 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 4.6. However, in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), the record indicated that Kuizhou had 186,000 households, 662,000 households, and an average person per household of 3.6. According to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the household and population numbers were 103,000 and 429,000. The population number was 64.8% compared to the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) and 49.8% when compared to the numbers in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. After the comparison, we find that the population figures in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi were more reliable. If we assume that the average person per household was 5, then in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Kuizhou fu had a population of 1.303 million, and by 1953, the average annual growth rate of the population was 7.9‰. If we assume that the average annual growth rate was 8‰, we can estimate, based on the number in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was 918,000 inhabitants. 12

Zhongzhou and Shizhut Ting

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Zhongzhou had 173,000 households, 497,000 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 2.9. However, according to Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), Zhongzhou had 131,000 households, 409,000 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 3.1, while in Qianlong Min Shu Ce the figures were 81,000 households, 309,000 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 3.8. If we assume that the average person per household was 5, in 1812, the population of Zhongzhou was about 653,000, and by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 8.4‰. In 1820, the population was 865,000 inhabitants, and by 1953, the average population growth rate was 6.8‰. After comparing these numbers, we determine that the 1812 numbers were more credible. Vol. 3 of Dianjiang Xian Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908) and Vol. 2 of Shizhu Ting Xin Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850) contain

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

201

numbers of the households and the population 1811 (in Jiaqing 16th year), both of which were lower than the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). The number of households in Vol. 7 of Zhongzhou Zhili Zhou Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), however, was slightly lower than the corresponding number in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), while the number of inhabitants was slightly higher. Assuming that the average person per household was 5, in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), the population was 102,000, and by 1953 the average annual growth rate was 8.2‰—figures that were similar to the situation in Zhongzhou. Considering the average annual growth rate was 8.4‰, we determine based on the 1953 numbers that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Zhongzhou had 698,000 inhabitants, and that, with an average annual growth rate of 9‰, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was 473,000 inhabitants. Similarly, with an average annual growth rate of 8.2‰, in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Shizhu ting would have been 108,000 compared to 75,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) given an annual population growth rate of 8.5‰. In short, within the five prefectural administrative districts in western Sichuan, the household numbers of at least four recorded in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) are assumed to be reliable. In other words, the problems with the statistics of Sichuan Tong Zhi were caused by unbelievably low person-per-household ratios. No patterns are discernable regarding the statistics of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi for the region. In fact, the figures were either too high or too low. Meanwhile, the figures in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were about half of those in Sichuan Tong Zhi. 13

Mianzhou

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Mianzhou had 210,000 households, 1.104 million inhabitants with an average person per household of 5.3; therefore, by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was only 3.1‰. According to Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), Mianzhou had 157,000 households, 772,000 inhabitants with an average person per household of 4.9. By 1953 therefore, the average annual population growth rate was only 5.5‰. Relatively speaking, it seems that the data from Sichuan Tong Zhi are more reasonable. The records of Qianlong Min Shu Ce indicating that Mianzhou had 96,000 households and 347,000 inhabitants, did not include Luojiang county, and therefore were incomplete. In addition, it is noteworthy that the person-per-household ratios of Mianzhou recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi and Sichuan Tong Zhi were close to our standard baseline

202

Chapter 8

that was completely different from the standard baseline for the regions in central and eastern Sichuan. From 1812 to 1953, the average annual population growth rates of most counties in Mianzhou was about 5‰ with the exception of Zitong county that, had a rate as high as 7.3‰ due to the abnormally high sex ratio of 144 in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) resulting from incomplete female population data. After adjusting the figures, the average annual growth rate ought to be 6.4‰. In 1959, Luojiang county became part of Mianyang, Deyang, Anyang counties—a merge that was probably caused by the small population or economic underdevelopment of Luojiang county. Therefore, it is not surprising that the average annual population growth rate of Luojiang County from 1812 to 1953 was lower, only 4.1‰. According to Vol. 8 of Mianzhou Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), in 1771 (Qianlong 35th year), Mianzhou was absorbed by and came under the jurisdiction of Luojiang county. However, in 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year), Mianzhou resumed its old administrative system. Luojiang was then re-established with 12,000 households, 54,000 inhabitants, and an average person-per-household of 4.7. The capital of Mianzhou had 16,000 households and 75,000 inhabitants, with an average of 4.7 inhabitants per household. It should be noted that this account of the household and population situation of Mianzhou was from 1771 (Qianlong 36th year). From 1771 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Luojiang county was 6.6‰. At this rate, the population of Luojiang county in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) ought to be 64,000, and the population of the entire Mianzhou fu ought to be 411,000. Therefore, from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Mianzhou was 8.9‰. Based on the data from Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), if we assume that the average annual growth rate was 5.5‰, we can determine that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Mianzhou was 806,000, while in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) the population was 633,000. 14

Chengdu Fu

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Chengdu fu had 1.707 million households, 5.484 million inhabitants with an average person per household ratio of 3.2 while according to Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), there were 1.167 million households, 3.837 million inhabitants with an average person per household ratio of 3.3. Meanwhile, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Chengdu only had 449,000 households and 1.624 million

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

203

inhabitants—only half of the figures documented in Sichuan Tong Zhi. If we adjusted the person-per-household rate to five in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), Chengdu would then have 5.835 million inhabitants, close to the 5.902 million in 1953. The population in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi was also close to the population in 1953—which is questionable. On the contrary, if the person-per-household ratio is adjusted, from 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth rate would be 3‰, and from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1953, it would be 8.2‰. The records of the household and population of Chengdu fu in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) show a deviation from the pattern obtained from the figures of the aforementioned 13 prefectural districts the 1953 data. However, these data require further investigation by studying the county-level data. Vol. 2 of Chengdu Xian Zhi, edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), contains records of the Eight Banners moving to Sichuan. From 1667 (Kangxi 6th year) to 1871 (Tongzhi 10th year), the average annual growth rate of the Manchurian and Mongolian Eight Banners was 4‰ with regard to the household numbers and 4.4‰ with regard to the number of inhabitants. The average person-per-household ratio was about 3. The relatively low ratio was caused by the fact that the majority of the in-flowing Eight Banners in 1667 (Kangxi 6th year) were young soldiers having small families, and in 1871 (Tongzhi 10th year), by the restriction on the occupational choices of the Eight Banners and their descendants. According to Vol. 2 of Shuangliu Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), Shuangliu county had 30,000 households, 94,000 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 3.1. However, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Shuangliu county had 23,000 households, 76,000 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 3.3— much smaller than the statistics in Shuangliu Xian Zhi. According to Vol. 2 of Shuangliu Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), Shuangliu county had 32,000 households, 97,000 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 3.1. However, in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Shuangliu county had 67,000 households, 182,000 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 2.7. The overall population succeeded the 175,000 inhabitants in 1953. According to Shuangliu Xianzhi, from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 5.3‰; from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1953, and from 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) to 1953, it was 4.2‰. Both ratios are reasonable. Only the figures of Sichuan Tongzhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) exceeded the 1953 numbers, which was clearly unreasonable.

204

Chapter 8

In addition, the recorded numbers of households and population in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) in Shuangliu Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) were only half of the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). The repeated appearance of a 50% gap leads to my speculation that the numbers from Sichuan Tong Zhi were fabricated based on the data from Qianlong Min Shu Ce or the county references. As for the county-level data, a significant proportion of the population outside of “chengliang huahu” (the households paying tax in grains) in central and eastern Sichuan remained unaccounted for. It is likely that the editors of Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) fabricated the figures of the inhabitants in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) based on the assumption that the proportion of “chengliang huahu” against “wei chengliang huahu” (the households not paying tax in grains) in the regions was 1:1. The editors of Sichuan Tong Zhi, edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), probably were not aware that the local records and the records in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were accurate for some of the counties under Chengdu fu. Therefore, when the editors of Sichuan Tongzhi doubled these accurate numbers, they came up with an abnormally high number of inhabitants that even surpassed the 1953 figures. According to Vol. 2 of Xindu Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), Xindu county had 21,000 households, 84,000 inhabitants, and an average of person per household of 3.9, that is, only 47% of the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). Based on the figures recorded in Xindu Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 3.2‰. Furthermore, based on the figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), from 1812 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate was −2.1‰. After comparing with the numbers in Xindu Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) and those from Qianlong Min Shu Ce, we determine that the figures from the latter source were more credible given that the average annual growth rate was 5.6‰. From the above, it is clear that the exaggeration of households and population data of Xindu county in local records started in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). According to Vol. 3 of Shifang Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), Shifang county had 49,000 huahu (households), 148,000 inhabitants with an average person per household of 3. However, in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), the number of inhabitants was 175,000 resulting in an incredible average person per household of only 2.4. Meanwhile, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce,

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

205

Shifang county had 27,000 households, 81,000 inhabitants with an average person per household of 3, that is, only 46.1% of the figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi. It appears the figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi were fabricated based on the data of Qianlong Min Shu Ce, which indicated that from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 7‰—which was credible. The rate was only 2.4‰ from 1812 to 1953 based on the data from Sichuan Tong Zhi. According to Vol. 3 of Xinfan Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), Xinfan county had 12,000 households and 33,000 inhabitants, that is, only 15% of the figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). From 1953 (Jiaqing 17th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth rate was as high as 9.7‰, according to Xinfan Xian Zhi. The high rate was caused by the inclusion of part of the population of Chengdu county in the 1953 population figures of Xinxian county following the adjustment of the administrative districts. According to Sichuan Tong Zhi, the rate was −3.8‰, which was unreliable. The records of Qianlong Minshu Ce show that Xinfan had 26,000 households and 91,000 inhabitants, with an average person per household of 3.5. By 1953, the average annual growth rate of the population of Xinfan county was only 2.2‰. Therefore, we determine that the numbers in Xinfan Xian Zhi were lower than the actual numbers, while in Qianlong Min Shu Ce higher. This book does not conduct a detailed analysis of the household and population data in Peng Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), Hanzhou Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), Chongning Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), Xinjin Xian Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), Wenjiang Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), and Jintang Xian Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). Therefore, from the above discussion, the following conclusions can be reached regarding the four counties as well Shuangliu, Xindu Xinfan, and Shifang counties: Except for Jintang county, the data in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were relatively more accurate for all the 10 counties (namely Shuangliu, Chengdou, Xindou, Xinfan, Pengxian, Hanzhou, Chongning, Xinjin, and Wenjiang). The local records for the four counties of Shuangliu, Pengxian, Hanzhou, and Chongning were, generally, more reliable. However, the data from Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) was reliable for only Jintang county. In Qianlong Minshu Ce, the nine counties, including Shuangliu, had a total of 801,000 inhabitants in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) 1873,000 in 1953, with an annual population growth rate from 1795 to 1953 of 5.4‰. However, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the total population of Chengdu fu was 1.624 million,

206

Chapter 8

and by 1953, the average annual growth rate of the population was as high as 8.4‰. After a close investigation, we found that of the 16 counties of Chengdu fu, nine including Shuangliu, Chengdou, Xindou, Xinfan, Pengxian, Hanzhou, Chongning, Xinjin, and Wenjiang, had the lowest average population annual growth rates from 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) to 1953. It should be noted that counties including Jianzhou, Jintang, and Chongqing that had high average population annual growth rates were not listed among them. For example, based on the figures in Sichuan Tongzhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), which doubled the numbers from Qianlong Min Shu Ce. Even then, by 1953, the growth rate of Jianzhou was still as high as 10.5‰. Therefore, we can conclude that the population numbers in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were significantly smaller than the actual numbers. This is also the case with Jiantang and Chongqing counties. Thus, we speculate that the growth rates of the nine counties, including Shuangliu can represent the overall growth rate level in Chengdu fu. This speculation is also supported by our findings in the local records, which indicate that the four counties, including Shuangliu had 448,000 inhabitants in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), 1 million in 1953 with an average annual population growth rate of 5.7‰. Jianzhou was located in the southeast of Chengdu fu. The vast area of Jianzhou suggests that, compared with the areas near Chengdu prefectural city, Jianzhou had more land and, therefore, could harbor more people. This explains why it experienced higher population growth. The condition of Chongqing fu was roughly the same. With an average annual growth rate of 5.5‰, in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the regions, with the exception of Jianzhou, Chongqing (written as 崇庆), and Jintang counties under Chengdu fu, had a population of 1.79 million. If we assume that the average annual growth rate was 8‰, we can determine that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Jianzhou and Chongqing was about 538,000. With an average annual rate of 7.5‰, the population of Jiantang county in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 237,000. That means the total population of Chengdu fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) ought to be about 2.565 million. Between the late Qianlong and Jiaqing periods, the large-scale in-flow migration to Sichuan ended, and the growth rate of the population declined to the natural level. The natural rate of population growth remained relatively high for some time after the arrival of migrants. With reference to the situation in the surrounding prefectures, we understand that from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), the average annual population growth rate was 8‰, making it possible to determine that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was 1.806 million.

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

15

207

Qiongzhou

There were three counties under the jurisdiction of Qiongzhou, namely Qiongzhoucapital, Pujiang and Dayi. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Qiongzhou had 112,000 households, 612,000 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 5.5. However, in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), there were 88,000 households, 470,000 inhabitants with 5.3 persons per household, while in Qianlong Min Shu Ce the figures were 63,000 households, 279,000 inhabitants, and 4.4 persons per household. According to Vol. 17 of Qiongzhou Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), the capital of Qiongzhou had 136,000 inhabitants, and in 1805 (Jiaqing 10th year) it had 144,000 inhabitants meaning the annual average growth rate of the population was 6.1‰. According to Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in 1812, the capital of Qiongzhou had 155,000 inhabitants—a number that seems to have been made to correspond with the 1795 numbers. In Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the population was only 101,000, which was much smaller than the number documented in Qiongzhou Zhi and therefore unreasonable. From 1812 to 1953, the average annual growth rate of the population of the capital of Qiongzhou was 7.1‰. According to Vol. 17 of Qiongzhou Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), Dayi had 66,000 households and 168,000 inhabitants with an unbelievably low sex ratio of only 53. In Sichuan Tong Zhi, the household and population numbers were 28,000 and 175,000, and by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 4.1‰. According to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Dayi county had 20,000 households and 103,000 inhabitants. Therefore, from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Dayi was 7‰. That means, at this rate, in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), Dayi county had 116,000 inhabitants. According to Vol. 17 of Qiongzhou Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796– 1820), in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), Pujiang county had 19,000 households and 94,000 inhabitants. By 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 2.5‰. Based on these numbers recorded in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), the population was 75,000, and by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 3.7‰—seemingly more reasonable than the rate recorded in Qiongzhou Zhi. According to Sichuan Tong Zhi, edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), the population in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) was larger than that of 1953 and therefore discarded. It can be concluded based on the data in Qianlong Min Shu Ce that Dayi and Pujiang figures were relatively reasonable, and the population of the capital of Qiongzhou was relatively lower. However, by replacing them

208

Chapter 8

with the corresponding figures in Qiongzhou Zhi, we determine that in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), Qiongzhou had 314,000 inhabitants, and in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), the three counties had a total of 364,000 inhabitants. That means the average annual population growth rate during the 17 years was 8.8‰. At this rate, we determine that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population of Qiongzhou was 266,000, and in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population was 390,000 inhabitants. 16

Long’an Fu

Under its jurisdiction, Long’an fu had four counties: Pingwu, Jiangyou, Shiquan, and Changming. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Long’an fu had 130,000 households and 833,000 inhabitants—a questionable number, given that it was significantly higher than the 651,000 inhabitants in 1953. However, based on the record of Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), Long’an had 92,000 households, 579,000 inhabitants, and by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was only 0.8‰. Meanwhile, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Long’an had 48,000 households and 280,000 inhabitants, only half of the number recorded in Sichuan Tong Zhi. Based on the figures in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the average annual growth rate of the population was 5.3‰ by 1953. The household and population numbers of Pingwu, Shiquan, and Zhangming counties “after 1796 (Jiaqing 1st year)” in Vol. 3 of Long’an Fu Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850) were the same as in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). Unlike the county-level sex ratios of the other regions in Sichuan Tong Zhi, the sex ratio of Jiangyou county, as indicated by the records of Sichuan Tong Zhi, was reasonable. However, the number of the total population of the county seems extremely unreasonable. The population numbers of the county after the mid-Jiaqing period, as documented in Vol. 9 of Jiangyou Xian Zhi and Vol. 3 of Shiquan Xian Zhi, both edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), surpassed that of 1953, while the numbers in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) in Vol. 8 of Zhangming Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874) approached the figures of 1953, meaning they were all incredible. As far as Long’an fu is concerned, the numbers in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were 48.4% of those in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). This further proves that Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796– 1820), may have considered the originally registered population as only part of the total population. Based on the above discussion, we estimate that Long’gan fu had a total of 280,000 inhabitants, and by 1953, the average annual

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

209

population growth rate was 5.3‰. According to Vol. 8 of Zhangming Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), the average annual population growth rate of Zhangming county was 6‰. Based on these figures, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population of Long’an fu ought to be about 251,000, and in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 326,000. 17

Meizhou

Under Meizhou prefecture there werefour counties: Meizhou, Danling, Pengshan, and Qingshen. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Meizhou prefecture had 151,000 households and 764,000 inhabitants. In the records of Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), Meizhou had 107,000 households and 551,000 inhabitants. However, in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the records indicated that there were 72,000 households and 289,000 inhabitants. In 1953, Meizhou had a population of 855,000, and given that the figures in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi were too close to those in 1953, they are questionable. The average annual population growth rate from 1812 to 1953 was 3.1‰—too low to be considered. In contrast, we retain the rate from 1795 to 1953, which was 6.9‰. At the county level, the data in Sichuan Tong Zhi shows significant discrepancies among the counties in terms of the average annual population growth: by 1953, the growth rate of Meizhou was as high as 7‰, while that of Qingshen was almost 0, and that of Danling was −2.2‰. According to Danling Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1799 (Jiaqing 4th year), Dalling had 5,000 households, 44,000 inhabitants, and by 1953 the average annual growth rate of the population was 5.1‰, rather than negative. The numbers of households and population were 15,000 and 65,000 respectively in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, meaning that the average annual growth rate of the population was 2.4‰, which was more credible. According to Vol. 7 of Qingshen Xian Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1811 (Jiaqing 16th year), Dalling had 17,000 households, 73,000 inhabitants, and by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 4.2‰, instead of zero. Meanwhile, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, there were 15,000 households and a population of 65,000 suggesting that the figures were based on the same source as those in Qingshen Xian Zhi. From 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1811 (Jiaqing 16th year), the average annual population growth rate was 6.6‰. According to Vol. 3 of Pengshan Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1799 (Jiaqing 4th year), Pengshan had 17,000 households and 77,000 inhabitants. The same record also shows that the number of inhabitants

210

Chapter 8

in 1811 (Jiaqing 16th year) exceeded the number in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), and it was close to the 1953 level. Based on the population figures in 1799 (Jiaqing 4th year), we determine that by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 5.8‰. According to Vol. 6 of Meizhou Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in 1799 (Jiaqing 4th year), the capital of Mezhou had 29,000 households and 109,000 inhabitants with an average person per household of only 3.7, relatively low. Compared with the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), the number of households was slightly lower, while the population was much lower. Based on the numbers in Meizhou Zhi, by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 9.1‰, that is, incredibly high. Meanwhile, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Meizhou had 28,000 households, 99,000 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 3.5. From 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth rate would have been 9.5 ‰, equally incredibly high. If we replace the population figures of the capital of Meizhou from Qianlong Minshu Ce with the figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) and slighly increase the population of Pengshan county, we can estimate that in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), the population of Meizhou was about 360,000 inhabitants and that by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 5.5‰. Based on the above discussion, we understand that the annual average population growth rate of Qingshen county from 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) to 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) was 6.6‰, and we can estimate that in 1776, the population of Meizhou was 318,000, while in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), it was 424,000. 18

Jiading Fu

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Jiading fu had 439,000 households and 2.065 million inhabitants, whereas in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), the records indicated that the number of households was 307,000 and the population was 1.525 million. As for Qianlong Min Shu, there were 174,000 households and 818,000 inhabitants. The figures in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were only about half the figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi, as demonstrated by the above discussion on the situations in central and eastern Sichuan. In 1953, the population of Jiading fu was 2.81 million. From 1820 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 2.3‰; from 1812 to 1953, it was 4.3‰; and from 1795 to 1953, it was 7.8‰. It is difficult to tell which one of these numbers is more reliable.

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

211

At the county level, according to Sichuan Tonghi (The General Records of Sichuan), the population numbers of the three counties of Emei, Hongya, and Jiajiang surpassed those in 1953; however, the corresponding numbers in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were only about 50% the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. Considering that by 1953 the average annual population growth rate was 2.8‰, 2.5‰, and 3.7‰, it is apparent that the figures in Qianlong Minshu Ce were more reliable. In addition, according to Sichuan Tong Zhi, within the 141-year period, the average annual population growth rate of Rongxian was as high as 10.2‰, while the rates of the other counties only ranged between 4‰ and 7‰. As can be observed from the example of the three counties including Emei, in some of the areas of rapid population growth, the mistakenly doubled population numbers of 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) and 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) in Sichuan Tong Zhi were still lower than the 1953 numbers, a suggestion that population growth makes it hard for researchers to notice mistakes. With regards to regions where the growth was insignificant, the doubling could even cause the population numbers in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year) to become larger than those of 1953, making the mistake more apparent. According to Vol. 2 of Weiyuan Xianzhi (Weiyuan Records) edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Weiyuan county had 36,000 households and 154,000 inhabitants. In 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), there were 46,000 households and 161,000 individuals, according to Sichuan Tong Zhi. Meanwhile, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the number of households was 16,000 while the population was 76,000—only half the figures in 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year). If we base our calculation on the figures in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, then from 1795 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 10.8‰, that is, too high. In contrast, given that the growth rate between 1812 and 1953was 6.8‰, we deduce that the figures numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi for Wiyuan county were correct, while those in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were wrong. Based on the data in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796– 1820), from 1812 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Rongxian was as high as 10.2‰. It is probable that the high growth rate was related to the development of the well salt industry in the region. As a result of the development of the well salt industry and regional urbanization, in 1939, Gongjing region of Rongxian county and Ziliujing region of Fushun county were merged and formed Zigong city. In 1953, the population of Rongxian county included half the population of Zigong city. However, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Rongxian county had 23,000 households and 103,000 inhabitants, only 55.7% of the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. In other words, from 1795 to 1953, the population of Rongxian county grew at an incredible rate of 12.9‰.

212

Chapter 8

Relatively speaking, the data from Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) were more accurate regarding Rongxian. Even for the counties under the same prefecture, the credibility of the data from a particular source varied: sometimes the correct data were from Qianlong Min Shu Ce and sometimes from Sichuan Tong Zhi. According to Qianlong Minshu Ce, in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), Jiaqing fu had a total of 818,000 inhabitants. If we assume that the population figures of Weiyuan and Rongxian counties in Sichuan Tong Zhi rather than those in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were correct, then we can deduce that the prefectural population was 956,000, and by 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 6.8‰. At this rate, the population of Jiading fu was 840,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) and 1.132 million in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year). 19

Xuzhou Fu

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Xuzhou fu had 517,000 households and 1.736 million inhabitants. However, according to Sichuan Tong Zhi, there were 394,000 households and 1.415 million inhabitants while the records of Qianlong Min Shu Ce indicated that the number of households was 221,000, and the population was 881,000—only about half of the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. In 1953, the population of the prefecture was 3.92 million, whereas the average annual population growth rate was 6.1‰ from 1820 to 1953, 7.3‰ from 1812 to 1953, and 9.4‰ from 1795 to 1953. It is hard to determine which set of the abovementioned numbers was more credible? According to Sichuan Tong Zhi, edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), within the 141-year period, the population of Leiboting showed negative growth caused by population changes in the ethnic minority regions. Given that the extent of the changes was not significant, we chose not to discuss them here. On the contrary, Gaoxian and Xingwen counties witnessed zero population growth and warrant further discussion. According to Vol. 13 of Xingwen Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), from 1730 (Yongzheng 8th year) to 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), the “cezai huahu” (registered households) gradually increased by 31,000, only 40% of the recorded number in Sichuan Tong Zhi. Furthermore, by 1887 (Guangxu 13th year), there was an additional 2,000 “cezai huahu” (registered households), 11,000 “you yanhu” (additional households), and 49,000 inhabitants. From 1887 to 1953, the average annual growth rate of “yanhu” in Xingwen county was 7.5‰, and from 1812 to 1953, the “huahu” population of Xingwen county had an average annual growth rate of 6.7‰. Thus, we can conclude that in the above-mentioned record “yanhu” and “huahu”

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

213

were essentially the same. Not only that, but the population growth rate of Xingwen county also indicates that the population figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi for Xingwen, Gaoxian, and Leiboting in Sichuan Tong Zhi were all fabricated. According to Vol. 7 of Qingfu Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), from 1782 (Qianlong 47th year) to 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), the “baobu chengliang huahu” (reported households paying tax in grains) had 15,000 households and a total population of males and females of 66,000. Here, “chengliang huahu” refers to the whole population, but the number only accounted for 69% of the number in Sichuan Tong Zhi. The numbers of households and population in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were 11,000 and 56,000, respectively, slightly lower than the numbers in the local records. According to the county records, from 1812 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 6.3‰, while in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the number was 6.7‰. Relatively speaking, the data from the county records and Qianlong Min Shu Ce were more credible than those from Sichuan Tong Zhi. The recorded numbers of several counties, including Yibin, Fushun, and Longchang in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), were much lower than the actual numbers. From 1812 to 1953, the fastest population growth among the counties under Xuzhou was in Yibin, Fushun, and Longchang where the average annual growth rates were 11.2‰, 11.6‰, and 9.9‰ respectively. The high growth rates can be explained by the substantial urbanization of Yibin since the modern times and the urbanization of and development of the salt industry in Zigong that led to a significant increase in the population of Fushun and Longchang. Nevertheless, it was unlikely to maintain such rapid growth for such a long period. In addition, in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the population numbers of most of the counties were only half of those in Sichuan Tong Zhi. Therefore, if we base our calculation on the population figures in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the resulting rates will only be higher. Here again, we have encountered the same problem as during our discussion of the population of Rongxian county under Jiading fu. Vol. 5 of Fushun Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) contained the population numbers of Fushun county in 1767 (Qianlong 32nd year), 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), 1810 (Jiaqing 15th year), and 1815 (Jiaqing 20th year): 123,000, 133,000, 178,000 and 216,000 respectively. On the basis of these numbers, plus the 160,000 recorded in Qianlong Minshu Ce, the average annual growth rate of each period was about 9‰ by 1810 (Jiaqing 15th year). This means that the numbers from Fushun Xian Zhi, edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), and Qianlong Minshu Ce were based on the same sources that were also the sources of the numbers in the Yongzheng period (1723–1735). The records failed to take the entire population into account, which is why in

214

Chapter 8

the records of 1767 (Qianlong 32nd year), the term “tuzhu” (indigenous population) was utilized. In 1815 (Jiaqing 20th year), it appears that there was a sudden rapid growth in the population of Fushun county. After a detailed analysis, we found that this number was from Sichuan Tongzhi, edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). It is noteworthy that the Tongzhi was complied in 1816 (Jiaqing 21st year). The majority of the population data were from 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), while some were from 1815 (Jiaqing 20th year). The editors of Sichuan Tong Zhi probably realized that the numbers before did not cover the entire population, considering that they used the numbers of 1815 (Jiaqing 20th year) instead of 1810 (Jiaqing 15th year). However, because there was a significant number of “floating migrants from other provinces,” they started to take into account the immigrants in 1815 (Jiaqing 20th year). However, the total in-flow population was not accounted for. This would then explain why the number of inhabitants for Fushun county in 1815 (Jiaqing 20th year) remained low. How to determine the real population growth rate of Xuzhou fu? According to Vol. 8 of Xuzhou Fuzhi (Xuzhou Fu Records), Xuzhou had a total of 490,000 households, 2.738 million inhabitants, and an average person per household of 5.6. It was also indicated that in 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year), the numbers of households and inhabitants were 3.049 million and 3.92 million, respectively. If we assume that the household and population numbers of Xuzhou fu during the Guangxu period (1875–1908) were from 1893 (Guangxu 19th year), that is, two years before the compilation of Xuzhou Fuzhi in 1895 (Guangxu 21st year), we can deduce that the average annual growth rate of Xuzhou was 6.3‰ from 1893 (Guangxu 19th year) to 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year), to 5.9‰ 1953, and 6‰ from 1893 to 1953. In short, from the late Qing Dynasty to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Xuzhou fu remained roughly stable at about 6‰. Given this rate, we determine that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Xuzhou was 1.769 million, very close to the 1.736 million documented in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. If we set 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) as our starting point based on the situation of Jiading fu, and assume an average annual population growth rate of 7‰, we determine that back in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was 1.301 million. In conclusion, after comparing the statistics of the seven western Sichuan prefectures, including Meizhou and Chengdu, and those of central and eastern Sichuan, we reach the following conclusions: First, Qianlong Minshu Ce took into account the entire population. Second, if we consider that the records in Qianlong Min Shu Ce were incomplete and double the recorded figures, we will arrive at numbers that either exceed those of 1953 or lead to an extremely low rate of population growth from 1812 to 1953.

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

20

215

Yazhou Fu

This section considers the six prefectures of Yazhou, Ningyuan, Maozhou, Maogongting, Lifanting, and Songpanting as the border regions of west Sichuan. The regions, which were populated by the majority of Sichuan’s ethnic minority groups, were the transitional zone between Sichuan Basin and Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, populated by the majority of Sichuan’s ethnic minority groups. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Yazhou fu had 155,000 households and 857,000 inhabitants. However, according to Sichuan Tong Zhi, edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), there were 158,000 households and 829,000 inhabitants, meaning that the figures were calculated on the same basis as in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. However, in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the number of households was 69,000, and the population was 315,000, with the data of Dajianlu (today’s Kangding) missing. In other words, the population numbers of Yazhou fu, with the exclusion of the population of Dajianlu in Qianlong Min Shu Ce, was only half of the figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi. At the county level, it appears that from 1812 to 1953, the population of Ya’an county hardly changed. The household and population numbers of Ya’an county in 1815 (Jiaqing 20th year) in Vol. 2 of Ya’an Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) were exactly the same as in Sichuan Tong Zhi. However, records show that the population in 1894 (Guangxu 20th year) significantly surpassed that of 1953. The population number of Yingjing county from Vol. 6 of Yingjing Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) was also higher than the 1953 number. According to “Hukou,” Vol. 5 of Mingshan Xian Zhi, in 1844, the population was 44,000; in 1854, it was 73,000; and in 1865, it was 103,000—same as in Sichuan Tong Zhi but some 50 years late. Apparently, these numbers were questionable. According to Vol. 2 of Tianquan Zhou Zhi edited in the Xianfeng period (1851–1861), in 1811 (Jiaqing 16th year), there were 14,000 households and 68,000 inhabitants, much less than the recorded numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. Considering that these numbers were true, then the average annual population growth rate over 142 years would be 4.3‰. In the 20th century, Baoxing county was established under Tianquan fu, and part of Baoxing was set up as Kangding county, known, at the time, as Daojianlu ting. Therefore, the average annual population growth rate of the prefecture over the 142 years ought to be higher. After taking into consideration the population of Dajianlu, we estimate that within the 141-year period, the annual population growth rate was 5.6 ‰. According to Vol. 2 of Tianquan Zhou Zhi edited in the Xianfeng period (1851–1861), in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), there were 8,000 households and 32,000 inhabitants, that is, only 72% of the corresponding numbers in Qianlong

216

Chapter 8

Min Shu Ce. As demonstrated by the previous examples, whenever the figures of 1795 (Qianlong 60th year) in the local records were lower than the corresponding figures in Qianlong Min Shu Ce and whenever the figures in Qianlong Min Shu Ce appeared reasonable, we used them, thereby discarding the figures in the local records. According to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, the six counties under Yazhou fu, with the exception of Djianlu, had a total of 69,000 households and 315,000 inhabitants. After excluding the population of Dajianlu, the totality from Sichuan Tong Zhi ought to have been 115,000 households and 600,000 inhabitants. The household and population numbers from Qianlong Min Shu Ce were 60.3% and 52.3% of the corresponding numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi. Our previous conclusion regarding the fabrication of the population numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi also applies to this case. With reference to the cases of Tianquan and Mingshan counties, if we assume an average annual growth rate of 5‰, in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Yazhou fu would be around 626,000, and at a rate of 5.5‰, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population would be around 492,000. 21

Ningyuan Fu

According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Ningyuan fu had 206,000 households and 1.266 million inhabitants. In Vol. 65 of Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), the household and population numbers were 236,000 and 1.288 million. However, according to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Ningyuan had 75,000 households and 380,000 inhabitants, about the same numbers as in Sichuan Tong Zhi. In the records of Vol. 3 of Mianning Xian Zhi edited in the Xianfeng period (1851–1861), from 1775 (Qianglong 40th year) to 1810 (Jiaqing 15th year), the county had an increase of 17,000 households and 68,000 inhabitants, and to 1821 (Daoguang 1st year), an increase of 20,000 households and 114,000 inhabitants—questionably close to the 1953 level. Also problematic are the records in Vol. 9 of Huili Zhou Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), indicating that from 1814 (Jiaqing 19th year), the numbers significantly surpassed those of 1953. According to Sichuan Tong Zhi, Huili fu only had 17,000 households and 90,000 inhabitants, thereby making the 4‰ average annual population growth rate from 1812 to 1953 reasonable. According to Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), apart from the two weisuo (inspection stations) of Dechang and Yanzhong, the five stations of Xichang, Mianning, Yanyuan, Huili, Huexi, and Miyi weisuo

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

217

continued to witness population growth by 1953. The population was 2.069 million in 1953, and from 1812 to 1953, the average annual growth rate n was 3.4‰. Apart from these eight county-level units, the population of “Jianchang zhen xia ge tusi” (the individual tusi under the jurisdiction of Jianchang town) needs closer investigation. Although each tusi had its own district, these districts were located in different parts within the borders of the seven county-level units. In 1812, the tusi under Jianchang town had a total 90,000 households. If we assume that the average person per household was 5, we can estimate that the population was around 452,000. The main question that remains to be answered is, were they Han people or ethnic minorities? According to Vol. 65 of Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in his report to the court in 1814 (Jiaqing 19th year), Sichuan Governor Changmin mentioned the purpose and scope of the population survey: The survey was intended not only to determine the conditions of the Han population in regions of ethnic minorities, but also to register the ethnic minority population willing to be ruled by the officials appointed by the court. The survey registered a total of 88,000 households and 425,000 inhabitants. Compared with the previously cited numbers, there was a difference of 2,000 households and 27,000 inhabitants. Therefore, we understand that “Jianchang zhen xia ge tusi” in Sichuan Tong Zhi referred to the Han population, rather than to the ethnic minorities. At the county level, according to Sichuan Tong Zhi, 452,000 Han and ethnic minorities lived within the 6 county-level districts other than Changde and Yanzhong. They had 82,000 households, a population of 398,000, while the remaining 8,000 households and 54,000 inhabitants were probably dispersed in the two weisuo of Dechang and Yanzhong. Miyi weisuo was populated by only ethnic minorities. Therefore, the 54,000 inhabitants were supposedly spread out in Dechang, Yanzhng and Miyi. In 1812, the registered population of the three weisu was 253,000, and in 1953, it was 275,000—having witnessed very little growth. After excluding these three weisuo, the average annual growth rate of the population was 5.3‰ from 1812 to 1953, from which we can estimate that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was 812,000, and in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) it was 1.025 million. 22

Maozhou, Lifan Ting, Maogong Ting and Songpan Ting

Maozhou, Lifan ting (also known as Zagu ting), Maogong ting, and Songpan ting, located in northwestern Sichuan, were populated by ethnic minorities,

218

Chapter 8

including the Tibetans. Because the administrative district was too big, we will only discuss the data at the prefectural level. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Maogong ting had 7,000 households, about the same number as in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). The number of inhabitants is unknown. If we assume that the average person per household was 5, then from 1812 to 1953, the 5.6‰ average annual population growth rate was roughly reasonable. Qianlong Min Shu Ce contained no records of the population situation of Maogongting and; therefore will not be discussed here. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the population of Maozhou and Lifan (Zagu) was 399,000 and 261,000, respectively. These numbers are unreasonable given that they are significantly higher than both the numbers in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi and 1953 numbers. The record of Vol. 3 of Maozhou Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850) shows a male and female population of 111,000, less than half of the number in Sichuan Tong Zhi, but close to the 114,000 in Qianlong Min Shu Ce. However, this number was significantly larger than the 69,000 in 1953, and, therefore, not credible. The numbers in Vol. 1 of Lifanting Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874) were also questionably larger than the corresponding numbers in 1953. Only the numbers of Songpanting in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi were lower than the numbers in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi where the number of inhabitants was 79,000. For its part, Vol. 2 of Songpan Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) indicated that since 1796 (Jiaqing 1st year), Songpan ting had a population of 52,000. However, in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), in addition to the abovementioned 52,000, it also mentioned a total of 71,000 “fanmin” (ethnic minority people). Based on these numbers, therefore, by 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Songpan ting was 5.4‰. According to Qianlong Min Shu Ce, Songpan ting had only 4,625 households and 19,367 inhabitants, numbers which were incredibly low and, therefore, unreliable. In areas where the ethnic minority population was concentrated, the records of Qianlong Min Shu Ce were incomplete. In fact, they were considerably low to the extent that some were ignored entirely. Our comprehensive analysis shows that from 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) to 1812 (Jiaqing 17th year), and to 1953, the population of Maozhou and Lifanting had a low growth of 2‰, while the population was slightly smaller than that of 1953. Assuming an average annual growth rate of 5.6‰ and 5.4‰ respectively, we can determine that in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), Maogongting had a population of 39,000 and Songpanting had a population of 75,000, and in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the numbers were 31,000 and 59,000 respectively.

The Population of the Prefectures in Sichuan Province

23

219

Summary

As demonstrated by Appendix 6, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population of Sichuan was 16.504 million. According to Sichuan Tong Zhi, edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), Sichuan fu had 21.658 million inhabitants in 1812. The records of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi show that the population was 28.02 million. This section estimates that in that year, the population was 23.388 million, close to the number in Sichuan Tong Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) and far from the number in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. However, this result does not attest to the reliability of the population figures in Sichuan Tong Zhi, edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820). Due to systematic problems in the statistics, the population figures of several prefectures were either incredibly high or low. After our adjustment, we estimate that from 1776 to 1820, from 1820 to 1910, and from 1910 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Sichuan was largely consistent and regular. Appendix 6 presents the population of each prefecture in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) and 1880 (Guangxu 6th year). The population figures of individual prefectures during the Xuantong period (1909–1911) were reliable. Only those in the western border regions inhabited by ethnic minorities were questionable. After our adjustment, we find that the actual numbers were slightly higher than the registered figures. The numbers for Baoning fu in eastern Sichuan were higher than our estimates, but only to a minor extent, so they were included in Appendix 6.

Chapter 9

Population by Prefecture in Northern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty 1

Zhili

There is a serious problem in the population data in Zhili prefectures in recoded in Jiaqing yitong zhi. Therefore, an attempt is made to coordinate the population data of various local chorographies. 1.1 Shuntian Fu Volume 145 of Ri Xia Jiuwen Kao (An Extended Chorography of Beijing) recorded the population of Shuntian prefecture by county, but it excluded the urban population of Beijing in 1781 (Qianlong 46th year). Han Guanghui (1996) and Gao Shouxian (2014) had a detailed discussion1 about the urban population of Beijing in Qing Dynasty. Since Wanping county was incorporated into Beijing in 1952, the population of Wanping was excluded from the comparison between the population of Qing and that in 1953. In 1781, Shun Tianfu had a population of 3.755 million while in 1953, it was 56.74 million with an average annual growth rate of 2.4‰. In the 23 counties under the jurisdiction of the Shun Tian Fu, both Wen’an County and Baoding County (incorporated into Wen’an County in 1949) had, exactly the same population of 1.45 million. By comparison and contrast, we determine that the figures of Wen’an County were erroneous. Assuming that the population growth rate was 3‰, the two counties in 1781would have had a population of at least 129,000. That means the registered population was 100,000 inhabitants less than the actual population. From 1781 to 1953, the three counties of Liangxiang and Shunyi, and Pinggu had an annual population growth rate of 8 to 11 percent. If the average annual population growth rate of the three counties was 3‰, then the actual population increase in 1781 was 250,000. In these 23 counties, the population of the three counties of Yongqing, Baodi, and Dacheng was, in fact, more than the population in 1953. This is 1 Han, G. (1996). The History, Population and Geography of Beijing. Beijing: Peiking University Press; Gao, S. (2014). The History of Beijing Population. Beijing: China Renmin University Press.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_010

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

221

nothing normal nor possible. If we assume that the same 3‰ average annual population growth rate was true in 1781 (Qianlong 46th year), the total population of the three counties, including Yongqing would only be 434,000. However, the registers contained over 530,000 more inhabitants. The population data of some other counties in 1781 are also doubtful. For example, the average annual population growth rate of Daxing County in 172 years was only 1.6‰. The decline of the population may have resulted from the urban district readjustment or its adjacency to the capital city Beijing. The population growth rate of the three counties of Dongan, Wuqing, Gu’an was also low. Assuming the average annual population growth rate was 3‰, the total population of the three counties would have been only 597,000 in 1781. However, according to population registers, there were 250,000 more inhabitants. After correcting the errors in the population figures of the above-mentioned ten counties, Shuntian fu (excluding Beijing city) had only a population of 3,325,000 inhabitants in 1781. If this figure is deducted from the base population figure of 160,000 in Wanping county, we are left with an average annual growth rate of 3.4‰ for Shun Tianfu from 1781 to 1953. However, Jiaqing yitong Zhi recorded only 530,000 households and 2,934,000 inhabitants—a significant decline from the figures of 1781. Therefore, the population in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) had been greatly underestimated. No population records of counties in Shun Tian Fu in 1820 have been found, so there is no way to judge how mistakes have occurred. Assuming that the annual average growth rate of 3.4‰ was reasonable, the total population of Shuntian fu in 1820 should be about 3.86 million. It would have a total population of 4.86 million, including 1 million urban inhabitants in Beijing at that time. Regarding the urban population of Beijing, Han Guanghui (1996) calculated that in 1781, the population of Beijing (including inner city, outer city, and 4 suburbs) totaled 987,000 inhabitants. Given that Gao Shouxian (2014) agreed with Han’s opinion, the population of Shuntian fu (including Beijing city) in 1781 had a total population of 4.037 million. If we assume that the average annual growth rate was 3.4‰, then Shuntian fu had a population of 4.235 million in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). Up until 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year), Jingshi (including the inner city, the outer city, the 4 Banners, the Internal Affairs Department, and the 4 suburbs) had 336,000 households, about 1.8 million inhabitants, and an average annual growth rate of 4.7‰. The census of Beijing urban population in 1910 was credible given that it was very detailed with well, structured, and highly categorized information. According to Han Guanghui, the survey conducted by the

222

Chapter 9

old Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau in 1948 recorded a population of 2.006 million. The annual average population growth rate from 1910 to 1948 was 2.8‰. From the time Beijing became the capital of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the urban population developed rapidly. In 1953, Beijing had a population of 2,760.800 inhabitants. 1.2 Yongping Fu Volume 45 of Yongping Fu Zhi, edited in the Guangxu period recorded 257,000 households and 1432,000 inhabitants in 1773 (Qianlong 38th year). Up until 1953, Yongping Prefecture had an average population growth rate of 4.1‰. In terms of the data by counties in 1773, Lu long County had an average of 8.8 persons per household. If we adjust the average to 5 persons per household, then we can claim that Lu long County had an average annual population growth rate of 5.6‰ from 1773 to 1953. During the same period, the average annual population growth rate of Qian’an County was 6.4‰. In the 1930s, Qinglong county was established north of the Great Wall in the territory belonging to the counties of Qian’an and Funing. If the population of this area had been counted in, then the average annual population growth rate of Qian’an county would have been higher. The population in Linyu county declined rather than increased probably because, since modern times, people have dispersed as the military and transportation status of Shanhaiguan has declined. The reason could also be that the new Qinglong County itself has absorbed a large number of people from Funing and Linyu. Therefore, the population figures of Yongping prefecture in 1773 (Qianlong 38th year) are not adjusted. In 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), Yongping prefecture had a population of about 1.45 million. Jiaqing Yitong Zhi recorded that Yongping prefecture in 1820 had only 112,000 households and a population of 671,000 inhabitants, no more than half the inhabitants of Yongping fu in 1773. This is completely wrong because if we assume the average annual growth rate to be 4.1‰, then Yongping prefecture, in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), had a population of 1.376 million. 1.3 Zunhua Zhou Volume 21 of Zhili Zunhua Zhou Zhi edited in the Guangxu period recorded 27,000 households and 132,000 inhabitants in 1792 (Qianlong 57th year) with an average of 4.9 persons per household—figures that remain unrealistic even though they correspond to the standard pattern. Jiaqing Yitong Zhi recorded 110,000 households and 702,000 inhabitants, with an average of 6.4 persons per household. The population data of Zunhua in 1792 (Qianlong 57th year), indeed, consisted of tax units.

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

223

Zunhua zhou (prefecture) recorded 167,000 households in 1910. Assuming that the average person per household was 6.4, then the prefecture should have a population of 10.69 million.2 The average population growth rate from 1820 till 1953 was 4.6‰. In 1953, Zunhua fu had a population as high as 2.309 million, including 693,000 inhabitants in Tangshan city, an important industrial city in the North. With the population of Tangshan city excluded, Zunhua fu had a population of only 1,616,000. From 1910 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 9.7‰, still too high. Of course, the rise of Tangshan city may have promoted the economic development and population agglomeration of the surrounding area. From 1820 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate in Zunhua was 6.3‰. However, if we assume that the average annual growth rate was 7‰, then Zunhua zhou in 1778 (Qianlong 41st year) had a population of about 540,000. 1.4 Xuanhua Fu Xuanhua fu was the army (wei) was stationed in the Ming Dynasty, and there was a very small civilian population that was administered by the military. The Qing Dynasty changed weisuo to a sub-prefecture (zhou) and county. Volume 10 of Xuanhua FuZhi (Xuanhua Fu Records) recorded 112,000 households and 475,000 inhabitants in 1757 (Qianlong 22nd year). In terms of population data by county, except for Huailai, Xining, Huaian, Weizhou, Wei County, the other six counties had a way too low average number of persons per household. All counties, except Xuanhua county, had an exceptionally high gender ratio, with the female population seriously underreported. This significant deviation of the average number of persons per household and the gender ratio indicates that the census conducted during this period is unreliable given the considerably large number of unreported inhabitants. Jiaqing Yitong Zhi recorded 162,000 households and 839,000 persons with an average of 5.2 persons per household in Xuanhua in 1820. From 1757 to 1820, the annual average population growth rate of Xuanhua was 9.1‰. The number was 7‰ from 1820 to 1953, which, an indication that the population in 1757 was smaller than it should have been. If the average number of persons per household is adjusted to 5, then Xuanhua fu would have a population of 560,000in 1757, with an annual average population growth rate of 6.4‰ till 1820, and 6.8‰ till 1953. Based on the data of 1757, assuming the average annual growth rate was 6.4‰, Xuanhua fu had a population of 632,000 in 1778 (Qianlong 41st year). 2 The data of 1910 was quoted from Han, G. (1996). Geography of Beijing Historic Population.

224

Chapter 9

1.5 Koubeisan Ting According to Volume 5 of Koubeisan Ting Zhi edited in the Qianlong period, Zhangjiakou and Dushikou had a total of 9000 households and 45,000 inhabitants, assuming there was an average of 5 persons per household. However, the situation in Duron Noor is more complicated. The same record described the streetscape and the range of Xinghua town and Xinsheng ying. Judging from the flock of business people and the booming market, there could easily have been ten thousand inhabitants in the two places. Including the herdsmen, the population in Qianlong 23rd year may have reached 80,000. In 1953, Koubeisan Ting had a population of 253,000 with an average annual growth rate of about 5.9 ‰ over the past 200 years. However, if we assume the average annual growth rate increased to 6‰, then Koubeisan ting had about 90,000 inhabitants in Qianlong 41st year and about 117,000 in Jiaqing 25th year. Unfortunately, Jiaqing Yitong Zhi had no population record of Koubeisan ting. 1.6 Chengde Fu Given that the Summer Resort was built in Jehol in the Kangxi period, Jehol became an important political and cultural center of the Qing Dynasty. By the end of the Guangxu period, Chaoyang fu and Chifeng Zhili zhou (prefecture) were separated from Chengde Prefecture. Volume 23 of Chengdu fu zhi, edited in 1887 (Guangxu 13th year) recorded the population figures of Chengde fu by county before the separation of Chaoyang fu and Chifeng zhou. In 1782 (Qianlong 47th year), there were 110,000 households and 557,000 inhabitants, with an average of 5.1 persons per household. In 1827 (Daoguang 7th year) there were 145,000 households and 784,000 persons with an average of 5.4. persons per household. The population data of Daoguang’ 7th year matched what was recorded in Jiaqing Yitongzhi, and indication that was the number of Jiaqing 25th year. In 1782, Luanping County had 5,000 households and 107,000 inhabitants. In 1820, the number of households rose to 7,000, but the population declined to 46,000. In 1953, Luanping county had a population of 159,000 with an annual average population growth rate of 2.4‰ from 1782 to 1953. The average growth rate from 1820 to 1953 was as high as 9.4‰, but none of the data is reliable. If we assume, based on the figures of neighboring counties, that the annual population growth rate was 7‰ from 1820 to 1953, then Luanping County would have a population of 63,000 in 1820 and 48,000 in 1782. From Qianlong 47th year to Jiaqing 25th year, the population of Chifeng county increased from 22,000 to 113,000 because of the influx of immigrants. In 1953, Chifeng county had about 300,000 inhabitants with an average annual growth rate of 7.4‰ since 1820.

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

225

In 1783 (Qianlong 47th year), Chaoyang county had 15,000 households and 61,000 inhabitants, with an average of 4 persons per household. In 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), it had 32,000 households and 77,000 inhabitants, with an average of 2.4 persons per household. If we assume that the average person per household was 5, then were 159,000 people in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), and the annual growth rate was as high as 25.5‰ between 1782 and 1953. In 1953, Chaoyang county (including Chaoyang county and Beipiao county) had a population of up to 925,000, with a 13.3‰ average annual growth rate since 1820. The ongoing immigration led to the establishment of new counties. For instance, Chaoyang fu (prefecture) was set up by the end of the Guangxu period. This was the same scenario in Fengning county and Jianchang county. From 1783 to 1820, the population of Pingquan county increased from 154,000 to 158,000 even though it had fewer households. From 1783 to 1953, Pingquan county had an average annual population growth rate of 8.6‰ meaning, with this growth rate, Pingquan county must have had at least 214,000 persons in 1820. After adjusting the population data of Luanping county, Pingquan county, and Chaoyang county, the population of Chengde fu (prefecture) must have increased by 155,000 inhabitants in 1820. The total population of Chengde fu reached 939,000 in the same year. In 1953, Chengde fu had a population of 5,970,000 and an average population growth rate as high as 14‰ during 1820–1953. Immigrants largely contributed to the population increase of Chengde. After the adjustment, the total number of persons in Chengde fu decreased by 59,000 to 498,000 in Qianlong 47th year (1783). The Qianlong period witnessed the highest rate of immigration in Chengde fu. Assuming the average annual population growth rate was 10‰ retrospectively, there would be a population of about 495,000 people in Qianlong 41st year. 1.7 Baoding Fu Taking Shulu county, for example, is one of the counties with population records data edited in the Qianlong, Jiaqing, Tongzhi, and Guangxu period. After the adjustment of the gender ratio, Baoding fu had a population of 240,000 in 1796 (Jiaqing first year),240,000, and 316,000 in 1871 (Tongzhi 10th year), and its average annual population growth rate of 3.6‰ during 1796–1871 was quite close to that of the rest of North China. From 1871 to 1953, the annual average population growth rate of Shulu County was only 1.7‰. From 1796 to 1953, the annual average growth rate of Shulu county was 2.6‰. That means Shulu county had a very slow population growth for a century and a half, probably because its population had immigrated.

226

Chapter 9

According to Volume 3 of Dingxing Xian Zhi, Dingxing county had 22,000 households and 94,000 inhabitants in 1778 (Qianlong 43rd year). In the Daoguang period, Dingxing county had a population as high as 166,000 inhabitants. However, it is impossible to determine the population of specific years because the page in the original book is illegible. Assuming that it was 1850 (Daoguang 30th year), then Dingxing county had an average annual population growth rate as high as 7.9‰ during 1778–1850. In the same book, it is recorded that Dingxing County had 24,000 households and 123,000 inhabitants in 1873 (Tongzhi 12th year), meaning the population significantly declined compared with that of the Daoguang period. The population in 1883 (Guangxu 9th year) was only 124,000. The average annual population growth rate of Dingxing county from 1850–1953 was 5.9‰. This growth rate remains unreliable even though it is higher than that of Shulu county. The average annual growth rate of these two counties from the mid-Qing Dynasty to 1953 was only about 4‰. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Baoding fu had a population of 1.705 million in 1820 with an average annual population growth rate that remained 6.3‰ till 1953. In comparison, I would rather adopt the speculations based on the data of the two counties. That’s to say, Baoding fu had 3,918,000 inhabitants in 1953, probably 2,304,000 in 1820, and 1,932,000 in 1777 (Qianlong 41st year). 1.8 Tianjin Fu Jiaqing Yitong Zhi recorded 370,000 households and 1,601,000 inhabitants in Tianjin, with an average 4.3 persons per household. In 1953, the population of Tianjin fu reached 4,745,000, and its average annual population growth rate was as high as 8.2‰ during 1820–1953. The high population growth of Tianjin fu was the direct result of the urban development of Tianjin. Excluding the urban population of Tianjin, Tianjin fu had only 2,051,000 inhabitants in 1953 with an average annual population growth rate of only 1.9‰ since 1820. According to Volume 6 of Qingxian Zhi edited in the Republic of China, Qingxian had 60,000 households and 260,000 inhabitants in 1802 (Jiaqing 2nd year) with an average number of 4.3 persons per household and a gender ratio of 106. This data is identical to what was recorded about Tianjin in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, meaning the two figures are of the same type. However, the problem does not lie here. The population figure of Qingxian was 206,000 in 1953, much less than the population figures in 1802 (Jiaqing 7th year). Accordingly, the population figures of Tianjin fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) must be overestimated. According to Volume 2 of Qingyun County Zhi, in 1808 (Jiaqing 13th year), Qingyun county had 13,000 households and 65,000 inhabitants with an average of 5 persons per household—figures that conform to the standards. However, Qingyun county had a population of 180,000 in 1953. Within nearly a century and a half, the average annual growth rate of Qingyun county was as high as

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

227

7‰, meaning the population growth of Qingyun county sharply contrasted with the population decline in Qingxian county. In the absence of further information, the population records of Tianjin in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) have not been revised. Assuming that the average annual growth rate was 4‰, then Tianjin fu had a population of about 1.343 million in 1777 (Qianlong 41st year). 1.9 Hejian Fu Among all counties of Hejian fu, there is only data of Jingzhou county available for analysis. Volume 3 of Jingxian Zhi, edited in the Republic of China recorded that Jingzhou had 40,000 households, a male population of 94,000, and a total registered population of 180,000. From 1742 to 1953, the average annual growth rate of the population of Jingxian was 3.2‰, which was similar to that of northern China under normal situations. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, there were 315,000 households and 1,616,000 inhabitants in Hejian fu in 1820 with an average of 5.1 persons per household. In 1953, Hejian fu had a population of 3,091,000 inhabitants and the average annual population growth rate over 133 years was 4.9‰. Though the rate was higher than that of Jingzhou, it was still within a reasonable range. Based on this rate of population growth, Hejian fu would have had a population of 1,303,000 in Qianlong 41st year. 1.10 Jizhou Prefecture According to Volume 2 of Ji Xian Zhi, edited in the Republic of China, Jizhou had 48,000 households and 129,000 inhabitants with an average of 2.7 persons per household in 1745 (Qianlong 10th year). Up until 1953, the population of Jizhou had grown by 3.4‰ annually. Volume II of Xinhe Xian Zhi, edited in the Republic of China recorded that Xinhe had 31,000 households and 69,000 inhabitants in 1790 (Qianlong 55th year), with an average annual population growth rate of 2.3‰ up until 1953. Volume 4 of Jizhou Zhi edited in the Qianlong period recorded that Zaoqiang had 31,000 households and 156,000 inhabitants with an average of 5 persons per household in Qianlong 10th year. It should be noted that the population grew by an average annual growth rate of 2.5‰ up until 1953 while Volume 4 of Jizhou Zhi edited in the Qianlong period recorded that Nangong county had 63,000 households and 113,000 inhabitants with an average of 1.8 persons per household in 1745 (Qianlong 10th year). It had grown by 4.4‰, on average annually, up until 1953. On aggregate, from 1745 to 1953, the population of the 5 counties in Jizhou had grown on average by 3.9‰, similar to the growth rate of most areas in northern China.

228

Chapter 9

That is to say, the population of Jizhou by county was not undercounted like in other areas in Qianlong 10th year. Therefore, the data could be seen as a representation of the real population. Even though rare, it is possible given that a similar situation had been existed in Jingzhou. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Jizhou had a population of 1,289,218 in 1820 (Qiaqing 25th year), a figure higher than that of 1953, which is obviously wrong. If we assume that the annual population growth rate was 3.9‰, then Jizhou had a population of 632,000 in Qianlong 41st year and 750,000 in Jiaqing 25th year. 1.11 Zhaozhou Prefecture Jiaqing Yitong Zhi recorded a population of 767,000 in Zhaozhou in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) and 1,153,000 in 1953 with an average annual population growth rate of 3.1‰. If we assume that there was a higher average annual population growth rate of 3.5‰ from 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) to 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) in Zhaozhou, then the population of Zhaozhou would have been about 658,000 in Qianlong 41st year. 1.12 Daming Fu As recorded in Volume 7 of Changyuan County Zhi edited in Jiaqing 15th year, there were 259,000 inhabitants in Daming fu in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) with an average annual population growth rate of 2.6‰ up until 1953. As for Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, there were 1,965,000 inhabitants in Daming fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) with an average annual population growth rate of 2.3‰ up until 1953. Taking the record of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi as the benchmark, with a 3‰ average annual population growth rate, Daming fu had a population of 1,722,000 in 1776. 1.13 Other Places Of all the fu (prefectures) and zhou (prefectures) in Zhili, there was no specific data about Yizhou, Dingzhou, Shenzhou and Zhengding fu, Shunde fu, and Guangping fu. Therefore, we estimate the data of 1820 based on the data of 1953 with the annual average growth rate of 3.5‰, and the data of 1776 based on the data of 1820 with an annual average growth rate 4‰. Detailed statistics can be found in Appendix Table 6. 1.14 Summary According to the records of Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao (Records of Qing Dynasty), apart from the population of Beijing, Zhili had a population of

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

229

20,567,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). For its part, Hubu Qingce (Records of the Qing Dynasty by the Ministry of Revenue) recorded a population between 2,153,000 and 2,483,000 in Qianlong 45th year and onward. These figures correspond with the figures recorded in Qingchao wenxian Tongkao. That means we have ascertained that the population was 19,841,000 in 1776—much less than the previously mentioned two records. The population in Jiaqing 17th year, as recorded in Hubu Qingce, was as high as 27,990,000, but it suddenly declined to 20,320,000 in Jiaqing 24th year. That notwithstanding, Jiaqing Yitong Zhi maintained the population was 1,964,000. That brings our population figures to 24,041,000—more than the records in Hubu Qingce and Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. The population of Zhili, after that period, was based on the statistics of Jiaqing 24th year. All the above records of Zhili population are inaccurate. 2

Henan

2.1 Weihui Fu According to Volume 18 of Weihui Fu Zhi, there were 311,000 households and 1,733,000 inhabitants with an average of 5.6 persons per household in Weihu fu in 1788 (Qianlong 43rd year). A breakdown of the data indicates that the average number of persons per household in Kaocheng county, Yanjin County, and Fengqiu county was relatively low at 3.5, 3.1, and 4, respectively. Paradoxically, the average annual population growth rate in the three counties from 1788 to 1953 was relatively high at 6‰, 6.5‰, and 7‰, respectively. Huaxian county, with an average number of households as high as 8.9, had the same population as in the year 1953. If we adjust the average number of persons per household to 5, Huaxian county would have a population of only 380,000, a difference of 293,000 compared with the registered number. If we assume that the number of persons per household was 5, then Weihui fu had a population of 1,557,000 in Qianlong 53rd year with an average annual population growth rate of 4.1‰ up until 1953. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Weihui fu had 350,000 households and 1.52 million persons with an average of 4.3 persons per household. The growth rate of households of 3.7‰ from 1788 (Qianlong 53rd year) to 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) corresponds approximately to the average population growth rate from 1788 to 1953. It is certain that population figures recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi were undervalued. Assuming an average of 5 persons per household, Weihui fu had a population of 1,750,000 in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) and 1,488,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year).

230

Chapter 9

2.2 Zhangde Fu Volume 11 of Zhangde Fu Zhi, edited in the Qianlong period, recorded that Zhangde fu had 215,000 households and 677,000 inhabitants with 3.1 persons per household on average in 1787 (Qianlong 52nd year). It should be noted that these statistics were relatively low. In this section, we discuss county data. Notably, Linxian, Wu’an, and Linzhang counties had only 1.4, 2, and 2.2 persons per household respectively, while the average annual growth rate of the population up until 1953 was as high as 14.6‰, 11‰, and 7.1‰ respectively. Volume 1 of Linxian County Zhi edited in Republic of China quoted Linxian County Zhi edited in the Qianlong period maintained that according to the census conducted in 1751 (Qianlong 16th year), there were a total of 550 villages, 27,000 households, 122,000 inhabitants with an average of 4.6 persons per household. Assuming that there were, on average, 4.6 persons per household in Linxian in Qianlong 52nd year, the population would have been 144,000 people. However, in Zhangde Fu Zhi edited in the Qianlong period, Linxian county had only a population of 44,000, with 100,000 persons underreported. Despite an average number of persons per households as high as 7.4, Shexian still had an average annual population growth rate as high as 11‰ from 1787 to 1953. It demonstrates that the number of households and the number of persons in Qianlong 52nd year were kept relatively low. If we consider the number of persons per household in 6 counties excluding Shexian, the total population would be 1,055,000. Based on the portion of Shexian in the total population in 1953, Shexian county may have had a population of 94,000, while the population of Zhangde fu may have been about 114.900,000 in the same year. From 1787 to 1953, Zhangde fu had an average annual population growth rate of 4.3‰. According to the record of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, there were 285,000 households and 137,000 inhabitants, with an average of 4.8 persons per household in Zhangde fu in 1820. From 1787 to 1820, the annual average population growth rate was 5.3‰. Assuming, retrospectively, that this growth rate was valid, then Zhangde Fu had a total population of 1,086,000 in Qianlong 41st year. From Jiaqing 25th year to 1953, the average annual population growth of Zhangde Prefecture was 4.1‰. 2.3 Huaiqing Fu According to Volume 8 of Huaiqing Fu Zhi edited in the Qianlong period, there were 260,000 households and 1,575,000 inhabitants in Huaiqing fu in 1787 (Qianlong 52nd year) with an average of 6.1 persons per household. Due to the impact of natural disasters in 1777 (Guangxu 3rd year), the population of the 4 counties, namely, Henei, Wuzhi, Wenxian, Mengxian was close to that in 1953. However, this was not the same situation for the counties of Xiuwu, Yuan Wu, Yang Wu, and Jiyuan, which had a steady population growth from 1787 to 1953.

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

231

As Xiuwu, Yuanwu, and Yangwu counties were located in eastern Huaiqing Fu, far away from the disaster center in the Guangxu period, they were significantly impacted by the disaster in the Huangxu period. In particular, Yuanwu and Yangwu did not receive any impact. Therefore, the average annual population growth rate of 3.9‰ in Yuanwu and Yangwu counties over the 166 years was taken as the average annual population growth rate of Huaiqing fu before Guangxu third year. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Huaiqing fu had a population of 1,800,000 in 1820, with an average annual growth rate of 4.1‰ dating back from 1787. It is interesting to find two matchable data. Therefore, accordingly, Huaiqing fu had a population of 1,508,000 in Qianlong 41st year. 2.4 Henan Fu Volume 25 of Henan Fu Zhi claimed that there were 280,000 households and 1.44 million inhabitants with an average of 5.1 persons per household in Henan fu in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year). Upon careful analysis, we determine that the data has obvious errors. For example, Xin’an county had 15,000 households and 78,000 inhabitants in 1775 and 241,000 inhabitants in 1953, with an average annual growth rate as high as 6.4‰ from 1775–1953. This data is doubtful given that Volume 3 of Xin’an County Zhi, edited in the Republic of China, recounts that there was a major disaster in the Guangxu period with bodies everywhere and “the population declined by 60–70 percent.” This quote comes from the same volume of the book “Hou Wen Liang gong Diaries.” According to the population survey of Jiangzhe Yizhen Ju (Charity Bureau), after the disaster in Guangxu 3rd year and after deducting the casualties, there were only 9,000 households and 51,000 inhabitants (an 80% reduction) from 50,000 households and 219,000 inhabitants by the end of the Tongzhi period in 1874. Comparatively speaking, the population data by the end of the Tongzhi period is reliable. Therefore, the average annual population growth rate from 1874 to 1953 was 1.2‰. The natural disaster of the Guangxu period led to the low population growth in this period. If we take the population number at the end of Tongzhi as the base and assume that the average annual growth rate was 4‰, then Xin’an county had a population of 148,000 in Qianlong 40th year. Gongxian County may have had 21,000 households and a population of 61,000, with an average of 6.4 persons per household in 1775. According to Volume 5 of Gongxian Zhi, edited in the Republic of China, many people died in the great disaster in 1877 (Guangxu 3rd year). However, according to the records, Gongxian county had a population of 390,000 in 1953. There is no way Gongxian County could have had an average annual population growth rate of 7.2‰ from 1775 to 1953. Taking Xin’an County as an example, its average annual population growth between 1874 and 1953 was 1.2‰. Therefore,

232

Chapter 9

assuming that the average annual growth rate was 4‰ back to the year 1775, then Gongxian had a population of 239,000, that is, 178,000 inhabitants more than the registered number. In 1775, Yongning County had 31,000 households and 249,000 inhabitants with an average of 8 persons per household, a population bigger than that of 1953. If we adjust to 5 persons per household, Yongning County would have a population of about 150,000. So, between 1775 and 1953, Yongning county had an average annual population growth rate of up to 2.3‰. In 1775, Mengjin county had 10,000 households and a population of 61,000. Volume 4 of Mengjin County Zhi, edited in the Jiaqing period, takes into account the investigation of Baojia in 1815 (Jiaqing 20th year) in its statistics of 12,000 households and 75,000 inhabitants. Mengjin county had an average annual growth rate of 4.9‰ from 1775 to 1815, which was close to that of 1775 to 1953. After adjustment, Henan fu (Prefecture) had an actual population of 1,595,000 in 1775. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Henan fu had a population of 1.71 million in Qianlong 25th year with an average annual growth rate of 2.8‰ from 1775 (Qianlong 40th year) to 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year). In 1953, Henan Fu had a population of 3,299,000 with an average annual population growth rate of 4.9‰ from 1820. This growth rate is, compared with that of Mengjin, is obviously overestimated given that Mengjin had not been affected by the great disaster in Guangxu 3rd year. If we assume that the average annual growth rate was 4‰ during 1775–1820, the population in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) would have been about 1.909 million with an average annual growth rate of 4.1‰ during 1820–1953. 2.5 Kaifeng Fu The population data of the Qianlong period recorded in Volume 7 of Qixian County Zhi edited in the Qianlong period was simply derived from adding some figures to those of the previous year. If we assume that the population figures of Qixian in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) were correct, then the average annual population growth rate from 1776 to 1953 would only be 2.6‰, which is way too low. According to Volume 10 of Yanling Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China, there were 24,000 households and 122,000 inhabitants in 1771 (Qianlong 36th year); 31,000 households and 165,000 inhabitants in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year); and 34,000 households with 189,000 inhabitants in 1807 (Jiaqing 12th year). The abrupt increase of population in Qianlong 41st year could be considered the result of the change of statistical caliber. In 1953, Yanling county had a population of 316,000 and an average annual population growth rate of 3.7‰ from Qianlong’s 41st year. This was unlike from Qianlong 41st year to Jiaqing 12th year, where the number was 4.3‰.

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

233

Volume 2 of Yuxian Zhi, edited in the Republic of China, had a record of of the population data of almost every year from 1744 (Qianlong 9th year) to 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year). However, the figures did not appear to be authentic. Rather, they appeared numbers randomly added to the figures of the previous year. The average annual population growth rate during Qianlong 41st year to 1953 was 6.3‰ while the number of persons in Qianlong 41st year was underestimated. According to the records of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Kaifeng fu had a population of 3,428,000 in Jiaqing 25th year with an average annual population growth rate of 3.4‰ during 1820–1953. Judging from the situation of Yanling county, it is probable that Kaifeng fu had an average annual population growth rate of 4‰ during Qianlong 41st year to 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year). That means the population of Kaifeng Fu may have been 2,876,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 2.6 Nanyang Fu The records of Jiaqing yitong Zhi maintain that Nanyang fu had a population of 2,377,000 in Jiaqing 25th year with an average annual growth rate of 8.2‰ up until 1953. These figures are suggestive of potential problems with the data. According to Volume 4 of Tangxian Zhi, the number of ding seemed to have jumped from Qianlong 38th year to Qianlong 41st year. This means Qianlong 41st year might have been the year that the statistical caliber of ding was changed. Given that the average annual growth rate of ding in Nanyang fu was much higher than that of the central and northern areas of Henan fu, ding can be regarded as the male population. The population of Nanyang fu, adjusted according to a sex ratio of 110, was 4,213,000 in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year). By 1953, the population of Nanyang had grown at an average annual rate of 3.7‰, basically the same as that of the above-mentioned prefectures. If we assume that the average annual population growth rate was 4‰ retrospectively, then Nanyang Fu had a population of 3,534,000 in Qianlong 41st year. 2.7 Runing Fu Volume 8 of Runing Records edited in the Jiaqing period recorded 35,100 households and 1,834,000 inhabitants with an average of 5.2 persons per household. In 1953, the total population of Runing fu was 4,427,000, with an average annual growth rate of 2.5‰ up until 1953. It was recorded in Jiaqing yitong zhi that the population was 1,820.135 million with an average annual population growth rate of 6.2‰ up until 1953. The average annual population growth rate of Runing fu during 1795–1820 was only 2.1‰, meaning that the population in 1795 was overestimated.

234

Chapter 9

The data of Luoshan county was equally doubtful. In 1795, Luoshan county had a population of 298,000, close to the 307,000 in 1953. The average annual growth rate of the population of Runing fu (Luoshan county excluded) during 1795–1953 was 5.6‰. Based on this rate, the population of Luoshan County could be 114,000 in 1795, a total of 184,000 less than recorded in Runing Fu Zhi. So, Runing fu had an actual population of 1.65 million in 1795, and its average annual population growth rate between 1795 and 1953was 6.3‰. Although the Runing Fu Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period recorded data by county under the names of pai min, hu (household) and nanfu daxiao (number of male and female population), the population statistics may only refer to Xinyang county and Suiping County given that the two counties had an average annual population growth rate of only about 4‰ from 1775 to 1953. Judging from the situation of Nanyang fu, the nanfu daxiao (number of male and female population) could still refer to ding. It is unlikely that in the course of a century and a half, the population of Runing fu grew at such a high rate. Assuming this hypothesis is valid and adopts a sex ratio of 110, a recalculation of the population of the seven counties, other than Xinyang and Suiping, indicates the figure 2,707,000 in Runing fu in Qianlong 60th year with an average annual population growth rate of 3.1‰ up until 1953. Runing fu’s total population was also calculated to be 2,925,000 in Jiaqing 25th year and 2,505,000 in Qianlong 41st year. 2.8 Guangzhou Fu The records of Volume 1 of Guangshan County Zhi edited in the Republic of China indicate that there were 71,000 households and a population of 222,000 inhabitants in 1784 (Qianlong 41st year), with an average of 3.1 persons per household. However, the same record reported 937 yanhu households, including in the inner and outer city at nanguan (South Gate), and a population of 4,039, with an average of 4.3 persons per household. Assuming that there was an average of 4.3 persons per household, then the population was 305,000 in Qianlong 49th year. Guangshan County had a population of 464,000 and an average annual population growth rate of 1.7‰ during 1784–1953. The records of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi indicate that the population was 1,352,000, and 3,099,000 in 1953, with an average annual growth rate of 6.3‰. These figures, it should be noted, do not match the real situation of Guangshan county. There is every indication, judging from the situation of Guangshan county, that the female population was included in the figures of Guangzhou in Jiaqing 25th year. Assuming that, retrospectively, the average annual growth rate was 3‰, then Guangzhou had a population of 2,081,000 in Jiaqing 25th year, and with

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

235

an average annual growth rate of 3.5‰, Guangzhou had a population of 1,784,000 in Qianlong 41st year. 2.9 Other Prefectures So far, no records of a single county in Guide fu, Chenzhou fu, Xuzhou, and Nuzhou in the Qianlong period have been found. So, no analysis could be done. According to Table 6 of the Appendix, between 1820–1953, the average annual population growth rate of the three prefectures was basically the same even though that of Nuzhou was slightly higher. Table 6 of the Appendix shows the population data of the four areas assuming, retrospectively, that the average annual growth rate was 4‰. 2.10 Summary According to Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao (The General Records of The Qing), there were 19,858,000 inhabitants in Henan in Qianlong 41st year. In this section, after our calculation, we found that the population was 23,225,000. Furthermore, Jiaqing Yitong Zhi recorded a population of 23,598,000 in Jiaqing 25th year, but based on our calculation, the number was 27,498,000. There figures of both Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao (The General Records of The Qing) and Jiaqing Yitong Zhi appear to have been underestimated. This may have resulted from the fact that most of the counties of Nanyang, Runing, and Guangzhou in southern Henan Province only registered the male population. 3

Shandong

Compared with the counties of Shanxi and Henan province, much less is known about the population data of the counties in Shandong province. So, we are not that sure about the population of Shandong in the Qing Dynasty. This section comments on Shandong’s average annual population growth rate between 1820 and 1953 and conducts a retrospective study of Shandong population in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 3.1 Dongchang Fu and Linqing Zhou Linqing Zhili zhou used to be under the jurisdiction of DongChang fu, but it became an independent prefecture-level district in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) with jurisdiction over Wucheng, Xiajin, and Qiuxian county. Volume 8 of Dongchang Records edited in the Jiaqing period indicates that Dongchang fu had 387,000 households and a population of 2,910,000 inhabitants with an

236

Chapter 9

average number of 7.5 persons per household and a sex ratio of 110. In 1792 (Qianlong 57th year), Dongchang Fu had 271,000 households and a population of 1,556,000 with an average of 5.8 persons per household and a sex ratio of 112. Assuming that the average annual population growth rate was 3‰ during 1771–1792, then Dongchang Fu had a population of 3.1 million. However, there were only 1.556 million, meaning that the difference ought to be regarded as the population of Linqing zhou that was separated from Dongchang fu in Qianlong 41st year. Therefore, that would mean that Linqing zhou had a population of 1.544 million in 1792. The records of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi indicate that Dongchang fu had 334,000 households and a population of 1,697,000, with an average of 5.1 persons per household. The average annual population growth rate from Qianlong 57th year to 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 3.1‰. Jiaqing Yitong Zhi recorded that in 1820, Linqing zhou had 206,000 households and a population of 1,084,000 with an average of 5.3 persons per household. Though the figures seem reasonable, they are unreliable given that the population was far less than it was in 1792. The population data of Linqing zhou was overestimated in 1792 as the average number of persons per household of Dongchang fu was exceptionally large in 1771. If we assume that there were an average of 5.8 persons per household instead, then Dongchang Fu had a population of only 2,245,000 in 1771. However, if we assume that the average annual growth rate was 3.1‰, then, excluding the population of Linqing zhou, Dongchang fu had only 1.458 million inhabitants. Therefore, Linqing Zhili zhou, itself had a population of 787,000. From 1771 to 1820, the average annual population growth rate in Linqing Zhou was 6.5‰. The urban development of Linqing Zhou was basically formed before the mid-Qianlong period making it unlikely for Linqing zhou to have such a high population rate in the mid-Qianlong period. Dongchang Fu Zhi, edited in the Jiaqing period, annotated the population data of Qianlong 57th year with “Totals of ten subprefectures and counties and two wei.” The county data also listed the population of Dongchang wei and Linqing wei. wei and suo of the Ming Dynasty were all removed in the early Qing, but their population was registered in an independent system, with some of the figures not even included in the population system of the prefectures or counties. It appears that the population of wei in Dongchang Fu was incorporated in the population of prefectures and counties only in 1792. From this point of view, the population of Linqing Zhou area garrisons in Qianlong 36th year may not have been included in the record. In addition, when Linqing zhou was promoted to Zhili zhou in Qianlong 41st year, there might have been

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

237

registration or data cleansing leading to a significant increase in the population of Linqing zhou. Compared to 1820, Linqing zhou had a smaller population in 1953, resulting in the canal diversion, a decline of the city population, and economic recession. It is indicated in some parts of this book that Linqing had an urban population of at least 200,000 in the Qianlong period. However, the population was only 44,000 in 1953. Throughout the villages along the canal, many agricultural and sideline industries associated with the city, transport, and commerce declined with the decline of canal transport. From 1820 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of the Dongchang fu was only 2.1‰. Since the canal was diverted in the late Qing, Dongchang fu, especially the capital city of Liaocheng, also experienced the same decline and depression as Linqing zhou. If we consider the population in 1792 (Qianlong 57th year) as the basis point and 3‰, retrospectively, as the average annual population growth rate, then Dongchang Fu had a population of 1,418,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). Also, if we consider the population of Jiaqing 25th year as the basis point, and 3‰, retrospectively, as the average annual population growth rate, then Linqing zhou had a population of 946,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 3.2 Jining Zhou According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the population of Jining zhou in 1820 was 889,000. In 1953, Jining had a population of 1.425 million and an average annual population growth rate of 3.5‰ from 1820, which is quite normal. In this book, I have proven that Jining had a population of 160,000 in the Qianlong period. In 1953, Jining had an urban population of 86,000 due to the decline of the usefulness of the canal. With an average annual growth rate of 3.5‰, Jining Zhou may have had a population of 763,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 3.3 Laizhou Fu According to Volume 5 of Jimo Xian Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period, Jimo and the 4 wei of Aoshan, Dasong, Xiongya, and Fushan had a total of 104,000 households and a population of 174,000 inhabitants with an average of 1.7 persons per household in 1763 (Qianlong 28th year). It appears as if just the male population was considered. If we assume that there was an average of 5 persons per household, then Jimo had an actual population of 521,000. Between 1763–1953, Jimo county (including Jidong county) had a population of 887,000 in 1953 with an average annual population growth of 2.5‰. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Laizhou Fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) had a population of 3,374,000 with an average annual growth rate as high as 4.3‰

238

Chapter 9

up until 1953. This growth rate was a bit too high, possibly because of the rise of Qingdao City and Weifang City from the contemporary time. In 1953, Qingdao had a population of up to 917,000 inhabitants while Weifang had 149,000. Excluding the urban population of Qingdao, Laizhou Fu had an average annual population growth rate of 3‰ between 1820 and 1953. Accordingly, Laizhou Fu had 2,928,000 inhabitants in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 3.4 Dengzhou Fu The records of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi indicate that there were 326,000 households and 1,913,000 inhabitants, with an average of 5.9 persons per household in Dengzhou Fu in 1820. However, in 1953, Dengzhou fu had a population of 5,435,000 with an average annual population growth rate as high as 7.9‰—an indication that the 1820 figures were significantly inadequate. According to Dengzhou Records edited in the Guangxu period, the population data by county in the Xianfeng, Tongzhi, and Guangxu periods was largely too unreliable to warrant any discussion. However, if we assume that just like in Laizhou and other fu, the average annual population growth rate was 3.5‰ between 1820–1953, then Dengzhou Fu had a population of about 3,415,000 in 1820. Based on the same assumption, Laizhou Fu and Dengzhou Fu had a population of 2,893,000 and 2,928,000, respectively, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 3.5 Yizhou Fu According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Yizhou fu had 391,000 households and a population of 2,181,000 with an average of 5.6 persons per household. On the contrary, Dengzhou fu had a population of 6,483,000 in 1953, with an average annual growth rate of 8.2‰, which is too high to be realistic. Volume 2 of Tancheng Xian Zhi maintains the population data of 1763 (Qianlong 28th year), 1773 (Qianlong 38th year), 1783 (Qianlong 48th year), and 1790 (Qianlong 55th year). It should be noted that the demographic statistics of Tancheng declined before 1783 (Qianlong 48th year) to 56,000 households and 273,000 inhabitants with an average of 4.8 persons per household. In 1809 (Jiaqing 14th year), Tancheng had 61,000 households and a population of 291,000 with the same average number of persons per household and an identical sex ratio. The average annual population growth rate between 1783 and 1809 and between 1783 and 1953 remained 3.9‰. In 1947, Linyi County, Tancheng, and Feixian County were carved out to establish Cangshan County. We assume that one-third of the population of Cangshan originated from Tacheng. However, Tancheng accounted for only 23% of the total population in the three counties. That means the population incorporated to that of Cangshan was less than one-third of the total, further

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

239

indicating that the average annual population growth rate between 1783 and 1953 could have been lower. If we assume that the average annual population growth rate was 3.5‰, then Yizhou had a total population of 4.074 million in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) and 3.493 million in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). The record in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi was only about half of the actual population of Yizhou fu, a suggestion that the female population may have been underreported. However, considering a gender ratio of 107 in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) and considering that the population record in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi is the male population, we can calculate that Yizhou fu had a total of 4.07 million people—data which is completely consistent with the calculation based on the data of Yancheng. 3.6 Qingzhou Fu According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Qingzhou fu had 544,000 households and a population of 3,319,000, an average of 6.1 persons per household, and an average annual population growth of 2.5‰ up until 1953. For its part, Volume 31 of Qingzhou Fu Zhi, edited in the Xianfeng period, recorded the population data of Daoguang 25th year (1845) with a significantly big problem in Shouguang County, which had an exceptionally big figure than the figure of 1953. There were specific data of adult males, adult females, boys, and girls, so it is impossible to have miss-reported the data. However, it is not known how the mistake was made. In 1948, Gaoyuan county and Qingcheng county were incorporated into Gaoqing county. With the data of Shouguang county and Gaoyuan county excluded, the average population growth rate of Qingzhou Prefecture was 2.5‰ from Daoguang 25th year to 1953. That means the adjusted population figures of Qingzhou prefecture in Daoguang 25th year matched the figures of Jiaqing 25th year. If we assume that the average annual growth rate was 2.5‰, then Qingzhou prefecture had a population of about 2,973,000 in Qianlong 41st year. 3.7 Jinan Fu Jiaqing Yitong Zhi maintains that in 1820, Jinan fu had 736,000 households and a population of 4,015,000 with an average of 5.5 persons per household. In 1953, Jinan prefecture had a population of 6.12 million with an average annual population growth rate of 3.2‰ from 1820 till 1953. Volume 15 of Jinan Fu Zhi, edited in the Daoguang period, recorded that there was a total of 743,000 households in all the counties and garrisons of Jinan prefecture in Daoguang 17th year and a population of 4,202,000 with an average of 5.7 persons per household and a sex ratio of 111. From Jiaqing 25th year to Daoguang 17th year, the average annual population growth rate of the Jinan prefecture was 2.7‰. That means

240

Chapter 9

the population data of Jinan prefecture in the Daoguang period came from the same source of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi. There are many problems in the country-specific data in the local choreography of Dezhou, Changshan county, Pingyuan county, and Zichuan county. So, we shall pause this discussion here. In the absence of more information, the totals recorded in Jinan Fu Zhi edited in the Daoguang period were adopted. If we assume, retrospectively, that the average annual population growth rate was 3‰, then Jinan prefecture had a total of 3,519,000 people in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 3.8 Summary Due to the lack of information, there are no specific population figures for Tai’an fu, Yanzhou fu, Caozhou fu, and Wuding fu in 1776 that could be confirmed. Even though the average annual growth rate of the population from Jiaqing 25th year to 1953 was generally reasonable, it remains unadjusted. If we assume that the average annual growth rate was 3.5‰, retrospectively, then the population data of the four prefectures in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) can be calculated. Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao records that Shandong Province had a population of 21.497 million in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), and it has been estimated, in this section, to be 27.902 million. According to the unadjusted data, the average annual population growth rate of Shandong was 6.8‰ from Qianlong 41st year to Jiaqing 25th year. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, the population of Shandong province in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 28.931 million. It should be noted that in this section, we calculated the population to be 32.326 million. After readjusting the population data of Yizhou Fu and Dengzhou Fu in Jiaqing 25th year, the population growth of Shandong Province appears reasonable. The average annual population growth rate from 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) to 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 3.1‰. The average annual population growth rate from 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) to 1953 was 3.2‰. The data in Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao matches that in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, which means the population figures of Yizhou and Dengzhou in Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao were underestimated. 4

Shanxi

Although it was not until 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) that statistics of ding were fully converted into statistics of the population nationwide, Shanxi Province

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

241

had conducted a census (household survey) and population registration according to the new standard since 1764 (Qianlong 29th year). In the early Guangxu period, the central and southern regions of Shanxi Province suffered from a severe drought which resulted in numerous fatalities. Up until 1953, the population of the southwest region of Shanxi had been small, approximately the same in the central Shanxi, slightly more than in the southeast, and significantly more in the north region compared with the figures in the mid-Qing Dynasty. The increase in the population of northern Shanxi province had nothing to do with the Guangxu calamity; rather, it resulted from the significant influx of migrants from inside the Great Wall during the mid-Qing era and the Republic of China. That’s why the population in many areas of Shanxi Province in 1953 was less than the population in 1820. Given that the population growth rate analysis method adopted so far in this book does not apply any longer, we adopt, in this section, the regional population proportion analysis method. 4.1 Xiezhou The county-level population data of Xiezhou in 1764 (Qianlong 29th year) was found in the local choreography. Unfortunately, the totals of Xiezhou were unavailable. A comparison with the population data of Hongwu 24th year is available in Table 12. In 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), the population ratios of counties in Xiezhou corresponded with those in 1953 with a significant discrepancy in household ratios, which means the population data was reasonable while the household data was not reliable. In terms of the data of Qianlong 29th year, the proportion of Pinglou population and three other counties in relation with the total population of Xiezhou fu would decline if the population of Xiezhou itself was included, the proportion of Ruicheng, Anyi, Xiaxian county would be close to that of 1953, while that of Pinglu county would be even more different from that of 1953. It is not reasonable that the population of Pinglu county was smaller in the Qianlong period than in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). In 1953, when compared with the population in 1764, the population of three counties other than Pinglu, declined as a result of the drought in the early Guangxu years. In 1764, Anyi county had an average of 5.7 persons per household—higher than the 4.4 in Ruicheng and 5.3 in Xiaxian. If the average number of persons per household is adjusted to 5, Anyi county had a population of 145,000 in 1764. So, the totals of Anyi, Ruicheng, and Xiaxian was 409,000. The population of the three counties accounted for 66.4% of the total population of Xiezhou in 1953, so it is estimated that Xiezhou had a total population of 616.000 in 1764.

242 Table 12

Chapter 9

County-level number of households and population ratio in Xiezhou in 1391, 1764, and 1953. Unit: Thousand

County

1391

1764

1953

Household Person H ratio P ratio Household Person H ratio P ratio Population Ratio (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Pinglu 4 Ruichen 4 An’yi 18 Xiaxian 9 Xiezhou 3 Total 38

48 40 62 65 24 239

10.5 10.5 47.4 23.7 7.9 100.0

20.1 16.7 25.9 27.2 10.0 100.0

6 20 29 33

33 91 166 174

6.8 22.7 33.0 37.5

7.1 19.6 35.8 37.5

88

464

100.0

100.0

112 92 110 154 67 535

20.9 17.2 20.6 28.8 12.5 100.0

Source: Data of 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) came from Volume 9 of Shanxi Tongzhi (The General Records of Shanxi) edited in the Wanli period; data of Qianlong years was obtained from Volume 4 of Pinglu Records edited in the Qainlong period, Volume 2 of Ruicheng Records edited in the Republic of China, Volume 4 of Anyi Records edited in the Qianlong period and Volume 4 of Xiaxian Zhi edited in the Guangxu period. The population data of Hongwu 24th year was obtained from Shanxi Tongzhi edited in the Wanli period. It is noteworthy that no further description in detail shall be provided

According to the Jiaqing Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Geography of Jiaqing period), Xiezhou, in 1820, had a total population of 800,000 and an average annual population growth rate of 4.7‰ between 1764 and 1820. The appropriate growth rate indicates that the data recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi was, for the most part, reliable. Based on the population of Qianlong 29th year and assuming that the average annual growth rate was 4.7‰ in Qianlong 41st year, it can be concluded that Xiezhou probably had a total population of 651,000. 4.2 Jiangzhou Volume 3 of Wenxi Records edited in the Qianlong period maintains that a codified register reported 220,000 households and a population of 132,000 with an average of 6 persons per household in Qianlong 28th year. According to Volume 2 of Jishan Records edited in the Tongzhi period, in Qianlong 31st year, the magistrate of Wei Zhi’ai surveyed and recorded the population of Jishan and the Silu to obtain 26,000 households and a total population of 158,000 with an average of 6 persons per household. It appears the population survey process in these two counties took the shape of a census. Jiangzhou had jurisdiction over 6 counties, including Hejin county that had no specific data for the year 1391. Therefore, Hejin county is not included in

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

243

this discussion. In 1391, the total population of the 5 counties, including Wenxi, Jishan, Jiangzhou, Jiangxian, and Yuanqu, was 321,000, including Wenxi and Jishan that had 95,000 and 64,000 inhabitants, respectively, accounting for 29.5% and 20.1% of the total. While in 1953, the two counties accounted for 27.6% and 23.4% of the total population, respectively, quite close to the figures of 1391. However, if the population of Hejin county was included, then the population of Wenxi and Jishan accounted for 41.3% of the total population in 1953. If we assume that Wenxi and Jishan accounted for the same percentage of the total population in the Mid Qianlong period, then Jiangzhou had a total of 701,000 inhabitants in 1765 (Qianlong 30th year) and 1,017,000 inhabitants in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) with an average annual population growth rate of 6.8‰ between 1765 and 1820. Based on the population of Qianlong 30th year and assuming that the average annual population growth was 6.5‰, there would be a total population of 753,000 in Qianlong 41st year. Strictly speaking, the above-mentioned estimation of the totals of Xiezhou and Jiangzhou could only be accomplished with data of the subprefectures and counties in the mid-Qing Dynasty. That means the interpretation of data seemed even more crucial. The high population growth rate in the mid-Qing Dynasty means a comparatively great decline by the end of Ming. This decline could be explained by the fact that Xiezhou and Jiangzhou, situated at the junction of Shanxi (Jin), Shanxi (Shan), and Henan (Yu) Province, were the venue of most activities carried out by the Shanxi (Shan) peasant army that came to Shanxi (Jin) in the Ming Dynasty. Xiezhou and Jiangzhou were also the main battlefield of the peasant army and the military operation base, so the population loss was greater than that in other areas. 4.3 Puzhou Fu According to Volume 3 of Yuxiang Records edited in the Republic of China, in 1772 (Qianlong 37th year), the four fang and three xiang in Puzhou had a total of 19,000 households and 106,000 inhabitants with an average of 5.6 persons per household. According to Volume 1 of Linjin Records edited in the Republic of China, Linjin had 27,000 households and a population of about 150,000 with an average of 5.6 persons per household in 1773 (Qianlong 38th year). It is reasonable to believe that the data of these two counties are the results of the survey conducted in the same year, and it is reasonable to believe that all the counties in Puzhou prefecture were surveyed around Qianlong 37th year albeit with some records missing. Therefore, it is impossible to get the totals of the prefecture by simply adding up the data of counties. A comparison of the population of 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) and 1953 turns out that the proportion of the population of all counties is close to that of 1953.

244

Chapter 9

In 1953, the population of Yuxiang and Linjin accounted for 29.3% of the total population, while in 1772 (Qianlong 37th year), the two counties had a population of 256,000. Therefore, the total population of Puzhou prefecture was estimated to be 873,000 in Qianlong 37th year. The records of Volume 3 of Ronghe Records edited in the Guangxu period maintain that Ronghe had 18,000 households and a population of 131,000 with an average of 7.4 persons per household in 1764 (Qianlong 29th year). These figures are much more than those of Yuxiang and Linjin, so it is hard to decide which data is more reliable. Likewise, assuming that Ronghe county, in 1953, accounted for the same proportion, namely 15% of the total in the prefecture as in Qianlong 29th year, then Ronghe may have had approximately a population of 870,000. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Puzhou fu had a population of 1,399,000 in 1820 with an average annual population growth rate of 9.8‰ from 1772 (Qianlong 37th year) till 1820. Compared with the adjacent Xiezhou and Jiangzhou, Puzhou’s population growth rate was significantly higher. Even though Puzhou Fu was also impacted by the great drought in the early years of Guangxu period, the average annual population loss rate of Xiezhou and Jiangzhou between 1820 and 1953 were 2.6‰ and 2.3‰ respectively, while Puzhou registered 6‰. Chapter 15 demonstrated that Xiezhou, Jiangzhou, and Puzhou suffered from the same drought during the Guangxu period, with a slightly heavier casualty in Xiezhou and Jiangzhou than in Puzhou. Therefore, it is certain that the population of Puzhou was overestimated in 1820. Assuming that the average annual population growth was 5‰ and with reference to the situation of Xiezhou and Jiangzhou, it can be concluded that Puzhou prefecture had a population of about 888,000 in Qianlong 41st year, and a population of about 1,109,000 in Jiaqing 25th year—290,000 people fewer than the record in Jiaqing Yitongzhi. From 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth of Puzhou Prefecture was 4.1‰. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Pingyang prefecture had 257,000 households and a population of 1,398,000 inhabitants, while Puzhou prefecture had 178,000 households and a population of 1,399,000 inhabitants. The number of households differs by as much as 79,000, but the number of persons was almost the same. The mistake might have happened when the numbers were being copied during the transfer process. 4.4 Pingyang Fu According to Volume 4 of Xiangning Records edited in the Republic of China, Xiangning County in 1781 (Qianlong 46th year) had a male population of

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

245

46,000 and a total of 87,000 inhabitants, including the female population. The records in Volume 2 of Linfen Records edited in the Republic of China indicate that in 1778 (Qianlong 43rd year), Linfen county had 46,000 households, 167,000 inhabitants with an average of 3.6 persons per household. Assuming that the average number of persons per household was 5, then Linfen had a population of 229,000. Volume 7 of Taiping Records edited in the Guangxu period maintains that there were 36,000 households and 154,000 inhabitants with an average of 4.3 persons per household in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year). According to the baojia system, Taiping County had 33,000 households and 175,000 inhabitants with an average of 5.4 persons per household in 1825 (Daoguang 5th year). Between 1775–1825, the average annual population growth rate was 2.6‰. Volume 6 of Quwo Records edited in the Republic of China recorded that in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year), there were 41,000 households and a population of 284,000 with an average of 6.9 persons per household. The data of the Jiaqing and Daoguang period are not reliable to be discussed as there are obvious addition to the previous data. A comparison of the population data of the 4 counties in the Qianlong period and 1953 suggests that Xiangning county had 15.4% of the population of the 4 counties in the Qianlong period and 15.5% in 1953—almost the same percentage. In contrast, Linfen County accounted for 29.6% of the total population in the Qianlong period, a percentage that is completely different from the 41.7% in 1953. This difference drove up the proportions of the total population of two of the 4 counties. Linfen county, as the capital of Pingyang fu (prefecture), had an increasing proportion of the population, which had a close bearing with its adjacency to the central city of southern Shanxi (Jin) province. What’s more, the capital city, Linfen, might have received more remedy in the great disaster of early Guangxu years, so with comparatively stable society and a smaller loss of population, it had a larger population in 1953 than that of 1778, while the other three counties had a smaller population in 1953 than that in 1778. In 1953, Xiangning and three other counties accounted for 45.1% of the prefecture’s total population. If they accounted for the same proportion of the total population in the Qianlong period, then the entire prefecture had a population of 1,248,000 inhabitants. Pingyang fu, for its part, had an average annual population growth rate of 2.6‰ between Qianlong 41st and Jiaqing 25th year. 4.5 Xizhou According to Volume 3 of Xizhou Zhi edited in the Qianlong period, Xizhou subprefecture had 5,000 households and 20,000 inhabitants in 1753 (Qianlong

246

Chapter 9

18th year), a population figure smaller than the 26,000 inhabitants of 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). Though the data was further categorized into adult male and female and male and female children, it remains unreliable. Volume 2 of Xizhou Zhi, edited in the Guangxu period, contained some population statistics of Xizhou from 1796 (Jiaqing 1st year) to 1884 (Guangxu 10th year). In particular, there were 57,000 persons in 1796, 104,000 in 1875, 23,000 in 1877, 27,000 in 1884, and 57,000 in 1953. Xizhou had an average annual population growth rate of 7.6‰ before the drought (1796–1875), 22.3‰ after the drought (1877–1884), and 10.8‰ between 1884–1953. The high population growth rate after the natural disaster was recuperative population growth. However, the population growth rate before the drought was not reliable. In 1953, Xixian County accounted for 39.1‰ of the total population of Xizhou. If the data of Jiaqing first year was reliable, then Xizhou had a population of 145,000. If in 1851 (Daoguang 1st year), the population figure of 71,000 is reliable, then the population of the sub-prefecture was more than 180,000. The total population of Xizhou in Jiaqing 25th year recorded in Jiaqing Yitongzhi was 134,000 even though the data after Jiaqing years might have been inflated. From 1820 to 1953, apart from Xizhou, all prefectures and subprefectures in Shanxi Province had a declining population. If the population figures in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) were correct, then we can confirm that Xizhou suffered less during the great drought in the early years of Guangxu period than other areas in the southeast of Shanxi. As collateral evidence, we’ve shown in the following section that Linxian, Yongning, and Xiangning counties in Fenzhou Prefecture also suffered less from the drought than the other counties. Xizhou was a neighboring prefecture, so it was similarly affected? In the middle of the Qing Dynasty, the average annual growth rate of the population in the south of Pingyang prefecture was about 5‰, and that of Pingyang Prefecture itself was 2.6‰. We attempt to prove that the average annual population growth rate of Fenzhou fu and Taiyuan fu in the north of Pingyang prefecture in the same period was 3.3‰ and 2.9‰, respectively. If we assume that the average annual population growth rate was 3.5‰ in Xizhou and Huozhou, then the two counties had a population of 115,000 and 301,000 respectively in Qianlong 41st year. 4.6 Lu’an Fu, Zezhou, and Qinzhou As far as Lu’an fu is concerned, the only information available that is discussed is that of Changzi county. According to Volume 5 of Changzi Xian Zhi, there were 19,000 households, and the actual indigenous population was 92,000, with an average of 4.7 persons per household in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). The baojia system records show that there were 33,000 households and a

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

247

population of 152,000 inhabitants with an average of 4.5 persons per household in 1815 (Jiaqing 20th year). The average annual growth rate of the population during 1776–1815 was about 13‰ with the high growth rate indicating an extremely small population in 1776. According to Jiaqing Yitongzhi, Lu’an fu had a population of 941,000 in Jiaqing 25th year, including the population of Changzi county that accounted for 16.2% of the total of Lu’an fu. In 1953, Changzi county had a population of 186,000, which accounted for 16.1% of the total population of 1,156,000 in Lu’an. It is not a coincidence to have almost the same proportion given that the records indicate the population of the various parts of the region maintained the same structure, further proving that the data of Lu’an fu in the Jiaqing period was the result of reliable census figures. Due to the influence of the great drought in the early Guangxu period, Changzi county had an average annual population growth rate of 1.5‰ between 1815 and 1953—the same as that of Lu’an fu between 1820 and 1953. Also, in the southeastern region of Shanxi Province, Zezhou fu and Qinzhou had an average annual population growth rate of 1.6‰ and 1.8‰ respectively between 1820–1953. This means the rate was similar among the three regions. In the following section, we demonstrate that between 1820 and 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Pingding zhou was only 2.8‰, while the average annual population growth rate between Qianlong and Jiaqing was 4.4‰. We can then estimate that the average annual population growth rate of Lu’an Fu in the mid-Qing Dynasty was around 4‰. Furthermore, Lu’an fu, in Qianlong 41st year, probably had a population of 789,000 while Zezhou and Qinzhou had a population of 755,000 and 224,000, respectively. 4.7 Taiyuan Fu According to Volume 16 of Taiyuan Records edited in the Qianlong, Taiyuan fu had 284,000 households and a population of 1,575,000 with an average of 4.9 persons per household in 1781 (Qianlong 46th year). The population data of Yuci county was unavailable at the county level record, so we filled in with the record from Volume 6 of Yuci Xian Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period, which outlines there were 50,000 households and a population of 265,000 in Qianlong 13th year. If we assume that the average growth rate was 3‰ up until 1781, then Taiyuan fu had 339,000 households and a population of 1,891,000 with an average of 5.6 persons per household. However, the population data of Qianlong 46th year was problematic. For example, Qixian allegedly had 27,000 households and a population of 41,000 with an average of 1.5 persons per household, while Xugou county and Taigu county had 9 to 10 persons per household. Judging from the proportions of

248

Chapter 9

their population in the prefecture, there is every indication that the population records were inflated. Lanxian county had an average of 10.5 persons per household, possibly resulting from a reduction in the number of households. The overestimation of the population was offset by the underestimation of the total population, which in 1781(Qianlong 46th year) was said to be about 1.782 million. According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, in 1820, Taiyuan fu had 332,000 households and a population of 2,087,000 with an average of 6.3 persons per household. Assuming that the average number of persons per household was 6, then Taiyuan fu had a population of 1,992,000. The average annual population growth rate from 1781 till 1820 was 2.9‰. That means, retrospectively, the total population of Taiyuan Fu back in Qianlong 41st year was about 1.834 million. 4.8 Fenzhou Fu According to Volume 7 of Fenzhou Fu Zhi, Fenzhou had 192,000 households and a population of 1,278,800 with an average of 6.7 persons per household in 1769 (Qianlong 34th year). The records of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi indicate that there were 232,000 households and a population of 1,807,000 with an average of 7.8 persons per household in 1820. The average annual population growth rate of Fenzhou between 1769–1820 was 6.8‰. If we suppose that the data of 1820 was reliable, then that would mean the data of 1769 was deflated. Volume 7 of Fenzhou Records edited in the Qianlong period contained a record of the number of households and persons in 1769 according to which four counties had an average of 4–6 persons per household. On the contrary, Pingyang county, Pingyao county, and Xiaoyi county had an average of more than 7 persons per household while and Linxian county had 18.5, the highest average number of persons per household. When these counties are viewed as a percentage of the total population of Fenzhou Fu in 1953, we notice that Pingyao county and Shilou county were similar while the other six counties differed significantly. This suggests that the data of 1769 was definitely erroneous. According to Volume 4 of Jiexiu Records edited in the Jiaqing period, in 1766 (Qianlong 31st year), Jiexiu county had 68,000 households and a population of 37,000 with an average of 5.5 persons per household. In 1813 (Jiaqing 18th year), there were 81,000 households and a population of 595,000 with an average of 7.4 persons per household. The average annual growth rate of households between 1766 and 1813 was 3.6‰, and the average annual population growth rate was 8.1‰. While the average annual growth rate of households appears appropriate, the average annual growth rate of the population was too high. Assuming that there was an average of 5.5 persons per household, Jiexiu county may have had a population of 445,000 in Jiaqing 18th year. Furthermore,

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

249

Jiexiu county accounted for 29.6% of the total population of Taiyuan Fu in Qianlong 34th year. Based on these figures, Fenzhou fu, it is estimated, had a population of 1,503,000 in Jiaqing 18th year—fewer than the 1,807,000 recorded in Jiaqing Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Geography of Jiaqing period). In Qianlong 34th year, Linxian, Yongning, and Xiangning county accounted for only 10.2% of the total population, while in 1953, they accounted for 43.3%. Obviously, the population loss of Fenzhou fu in Jiaqing 18th year mainly resulted from the underestimation of 300,000 inhabitants in the three counties of Linxian, Yongning, and Ningxiang. Assuming, retrospectively, that the average annual growth rate was 3.3‰, that would mean about 260,000 persons in the three counties were underreported in 1769 (Qianlong 34th year). That would also mean Fenzhou fu had a total population of about 1,538,000, with the population of Linxian County, Yongning County, and Ningxiang County accounting for 25.4% of the total. The adjustment considerably increased the proportion of the population of the three counties in Qianlong 34th year, but never to the level of 1953. Based on the population proportions of the three counties in 1953, Fenzhou Fu had a population of 2 million in 1769 (Qianlong 34th year)—an obvious impossibility. The huge increase in the population in the three counties, including Linxian, was due to the effects of the severe drought in the Guangxu period. The three counties were located in the Northwest of Fenzhou fu which was barely affected by the drought thereby leading to the rise in their population. According to this estimation and calculation, the average annual population growth of Fenzhou fu during 1769 (Qianlong 34th year) and 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 3.3‰, and the population in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) was 1,567,000. 4.9 Pingding Zhou In 1953, there were significant changes in the administrative zoning of Yangquan city which also witnessed the carving out of Xiyang city from Pingding Zhou. In addition, Yangquan, as one of the two big mining areas, had its population growth affected by factors like industrialization. Therefore, the previously employed regional population proportion analysis does not apply here. According to Volume 5 of Pingding Zhou Zhi edited in the Guangxu period, Pingding Zhou had 27,000 households and a population of 122,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). Also, it had 28,000 households and a population of 133,000 in Jiaqing 25th year and 29,000 households and a population of 136,000 in 1850 (Daoguang 30th year). The average annual growth rate of the population in the two periods was 2‰ and 0.7‰, respectively. In the Guangxu period, Xiyang County used to be Leping town of Pingding zhou.

250

Chapter 9

Volume 5 of Pingding Zhou Zhi edited in the Guangxu period indicates that Leping town had 17,000 households and a population of 72,000 persons in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) and 17,000 households a population of 73,000 in 1785 (Qianlong 50th year). That means the average annual population growth rate over the 10 years was 2.8‰. Volume 3 of Shouyang Records, edited in the Guangxu period, contained population records from 1731 (Yongzheng 9th year) to 1785 (Qianlong 50th year). The population data before Qianlong 36th year was the record of ding. The average annual growth rate of the population during that period was 4.4‰. Based on the data of the three counties, it appears reasonable to set the average annual population growth rate of Pingding zhou at 3‰. According to this growth rate, and beginning by evaluating the population of 640,000 in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Pingding zhou could have had a population of 561,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 4.10 Liaozhou The records of Volume 2 of Yushe Records edited in the Guangxu period indicate that there were 10,000 households and a population of 49,000 in 1742 (Qianlong 7th year)—figures which appear unreasonable. However, compared with the records of Hongwu 24th year and that of 1953, only the record of Heshun county were reasonable. In 1953, Yushe county accounted for 28.4% of the total population of the three counties. Therefore, based on this rate, Liaozhou may have had a population of 173,000 in Qianlong 7th year. In Hongwu 24th year, Yushe county accounted for 44.3% of the total population of the three counties, which means, based on this rate, Liaozhou may have had a population of 111,000 in Qianlong 7th year. The figures show a significant gap. Liaozhou had a population of 213,000 in Jiaqing 25th year. Therefore, the average annual population growth rate from Qianlong 7th year to Jiaqing 25th year was 2.7‰ or 8.4‰—a rate that appears more reasonable than the previous one. Assuming that the average annual growth rate was 2.7‰, Liaozhou may have had a population of 190,000 in Qianlong 41st year. 4.11 Daizhou, Yizhou, Baodezhou, and Ningwu Fu According to the population figures in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, there were a total of 73,000 households and 513,000 persons in all 4 counties of Daizhou in 1820. However, in 1953, Daizhou had a population of 748,000. Volume 4 of Daizhou Zhi, edited in the Guangxu period, contains the county-level population in 1880 (Guagxu 6th year). Fanshi county had an average of 11.7 persons per household. In addition, the population of 9,384 should be mistaken with 19,384. If that

Population by Prefecture in Northern China

251

is the case, an adjusted number of 5.7 persons per household on average is more plausible. Wutai county accounted for 20.9% and 27.5% of the total population of the prefecture in 1880 (Guangxu 6th year) and 1953, respectively. This is an indication that the population of Wutai county in Guangxu 6th year was comparatively too low, and the average annual population growth rate between 1880 and 1953 reached 7.3‰. During these two periods, Guoxian accounted for 41.4% and 36.6% of the total population, respectively, thereby indicating a possible bigger population in Guangxu 6th year. Furthermore, the average annual population growth rate of 1.8‰ between 1880 and 1953 also attested to that. It is worthy to note that no adjustment is necessary, given the understatement of the population in Wutai county is offset by the overestimation of the population in Guoxian. Daizhou and Fanshi accounted for the same percentage of the total population in 1880 and 1953 with an average annual growth rate of 2.8‰ between 1880 and 1953—an indication that there was possible population growth. From 1820 to 1880, and then to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Daizhou remained 2‰. Despite the negligible impact of the drought in the Guangxu period, Daizhou still suffered a 4.4% population loss. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to set the population growth rate before Jiaqing period at 3‰. As there was no specific data of Xinzhou, Baode zhou, and Ningwu fu to be analyzed, we have set the average annual population growth rate during the Qianlong and Jiaqing periods at 3‰ based on that the rate of Daizhou. 4.12 Datong Fu, Shuoping Fu and Guisuiliu Ting According to Volume 13 of Datong Fu Zhi, edited in Qianlong 41st year, there were 702,000 persons in Datong fu, all its counties, and Datong Garrison. If the migrant population in Fengzhen ting is included, the population would be 725,000. The records of Jiaqing Yitong Zhi indicated that there were 134,000 households and a population of 765,000 in Datong fu, with an average annual population growth rate of only 1.3‰ between 1776 and 1820. Suppose the data of 1820 didn’t include migrants of Fengzhen, then the average annual growth rate of the population between 1776 and 1820 was only 2‰. In 1953, Datong fu had a population of 2,014,000 with an average annual population growth rate of 7.3‰ from 1820. Jiaqing Yitongzhi recorded that Shuoping fu had a population of 530,000 in 1820 and 755,000 in 1953 with an average annual population growth rate of 2.7‰. According to Jiaqing Yitongzhi, Guishuiliu ting had a population of 121,000 in 1820 and 1,011,000 in 1953, with an average annual population growth

252

Chapter 9

rate of 16.1‰. The highest average annual population growth rate had a close bearing on the influx of migrants. So, we could estimate and measure the population of these prefectures in Qianlong and Jiaqing periods based on the average annual growth rate of 2‰. Therefore, it can be suggested that Guishuiliu ting and Shuoping fu had a population of 111,000 and 485,000, respectively, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 4.13 Summary According to Jiaqing Yitong Zhi, Shanxi province had a population of 14,627,000 in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), but in this section, we conclude that the population was 14,339,000. The difference was the result of a mistake while copying the data of Puzhou fu in Jiaqing Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Geography of Jiaqing period). According to Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao (1787), the population was 12, 503,000, slightly over the 12,278,000 calculated in this section. The difference is because the population figures of some prefectures were overestimated. In sum, compared with other provinces, the population data recorded in Jiaqing Yitong Zhi and Qingchao Wenxian Tongkao was quite reliable.

Chapter 10

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population In this chapter, I mainly discuss the impact of the Taiping War on the population of different regions. In addition, I analyze the 1910 population of regions affected by the Taiping War, then calculate the population of each fu in the different 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year) provinces as a reference to the overall reconstruction of each fu’s population in that year.1 To be specific, I use the year 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) in this chapter as the standard pre-war point of time and the average annual population growth rate from 1776 to 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) to represent the population growth rate from 1821 to 1851. It is based on these assumptions that I calculate the population in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). Then, using 1865 (Tongzhi 4th year) as the standard postwar point of time, I can work out the wartime population loss. Also, based on the above data, the population of each fu in 1910 can be calculated according to the population growth rate. Due to limited space, we have simplified the calculation of the 1910 population of each fu in this chapter. 1

Jiangsu

In 1853 (Xianfeng 3rd year), the Taiping army conquered Nanjing and immediately occupied Zhenjiang and Yangzhou. The official troops set up Jiangnan (the northern bank of the Yangtze River) and Jiangbei (the south bank of Yangtze River) battalions surrounding Nanjing. The Taiping army and the official troops in the northern part of Jiangsu Province mainly fought around the defenses put up by the Jiangbei battalion. In 1856 and 1860, the Taiping Amy defeated the Jiangnan battalion twice, their main battlefield being in the hilly area in the east part of Nanjing. After breaking through the Jiangnan batallion, the Taiping army conquered Suzhou and Changzhou and established Sufu 1 The 1910 data was obtained from the collection of the First Historical Archives of China— The Population Inventory in the 2nd year of Xuantong of the Jianghuai Areas Reported by Chengxuan Buzhengshisi in Jiangning and Other Divisions of Jiangnan, abbreviated in our book as The Population Inventory. The data was found in the article “A Household Survey and Population Estimates by the Ministry of Civil Affairs” by Wang Shida and cited in The History of China’s Modern Population by Jiang Tao, Hangzhou: Zhejiang People’s Press, 1993. The data of the 1930s was obtained from Chinese Economy, 20 (20) cited by Hu Huanyong in On the Distribution of China’s Population, Shanghai: East China Normal University Press, 1983.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_011

254

Chapter 10

province. The southern part of Jiangsu became the strategic battleground for Taiping army and the Qing troops. 1.1 Suzhou Fu According to Vol. 13 of The Record of Suzhou fu compiled during the Tongzhi period, from 1810 (Jiaqing 15th year) to 1830 (Daoguang 10th year), the average annual growth rate of Rending (male population) in Suzhou fu was 3.3‰. According to the above data, the male population of Suzhou fu in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) was estimated to be about 3,657,000 inhabitants. In 1865 (Tongzhi 4th year), the number of Rending in Suzhou fu was 1.288 million men, a decrease of about 65% compared with the number of 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). The total population of Suzhou fu was 6,543,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and only 2,290,000 in 1865—a loss of 4,250,000 inhabitants. From 1865 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Suzhou fu was 3.6‰. Given that the 1910 population was accurate, then its average annual population growth rate from 1865 to 1910 was 2.2 ‰. It is hard to explain why the postwar population growth rate was lower than the pre-war population growth rate. Therefore, the population of Suzhou fu in 1910 seems a little low. However, I do not revise it because the difference is insignificant. 1.2 Songjiang Fu In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Songjiang fu was about 2,915,000 inhabitants. According to Vol. 4 of The Continued Records of Songjiang fu compiled in the Guangxu period, the number of men and women in Songjiang fu in 1864 was 2.63 million inhabitants, a decrease of 285,000 inhabitants accounted for 9.8% of the pre-war population. 1.3 Taicang Fu Chongming county did not experience any population loss because it was barricaded by the Yangtze River, hence not affected by wars and disasters. According to Vol. 4 of The Record of Jiading County compiled in the Guangxu period, the population loss of Jiading county, compared to Jiaqing period, was nearly 50% during the Taiping War. Zhenyang County (present-day Taicang County) had a population of 200,000 inhabitants in 1797 (Jiaqing 2nd year), about 240,000 in 1851(Xianfeng 1st year), and only 132,000 in 1869. In 1865, the population was estimated to be about 130,000,2 with a population loss rate as high as 46%. According to Jiaqing Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Georgraphy of Jiaqing period), the total population of Taican Zhili prefecture was 1,778,000 2 (Xuantong period). Tax and Corvee. The Records of Zhenyang County in Taicang Prefecture (7).

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

255

inhabitants, and 1851, it was 1,971,000. The total population of counties other than Chongming was 1,310,000 inhabitants, and their mortality rate during wartime was 40% with a total of 524,000 deaths. The population of Taicang county in 1865 was about 1,447,000 inhabitants. This figure is higher than that of 1910 and that of 1933 and 1953. The decrease in the population of Taicang county may have a bearing on the separation of its administrative districts of Jiading and Baoshan counties which were later incorporated into Shanghai, or to the flow of the suburban population into Shanghai. 1.4 Zhenjiang Fu All counties in Zhenjiang Province suffered great losses in the war. According to Vol. 12 of The Revised Records of Dantu County and Vol. 16 of The Records of Liyang County, both compiled in the Guangxu period, the population of Dantu county was 332,000 inhabitants in 1840, and only 108,000 inhabitants in 1867, a decrease of 67.5%. The population of Liyang county in 1840 was about 366,000 inhabitants, and only 40,000 inhabitants in 1867 (Tongzhi 4th year), a decrease of 89%. In total, the population loss of the two counties was 78.9%. Based on the average annual population growth rate of 4‰, the population of Zhenjiang in 1840 (Xianfeng 1st year) was 2,484,000 inhabitants. If its population loss accounted for 79%, then there was a decrease of 1,962,000 inhabitants. 1.5 Changzhou Fu According to Vol. 8 of The Records of Jinkui County of Wuxi compiled in the Guangxu period, the total rending of the two counties of Wuxi and Jinkui (present-day Wuxi City) was 598,000 men in 1830; it was supposed to have been 650,000 men in 1840. However, only 210,000 men were accounted for in 1865, meaning there was a population loss of 67.7%. According to Vol. 4 of The Revised Records of Jiangyin County compiled in the Guangxu period, the population of Jiangyin County was 978,000 inhabitants in 1839 (Daoguang 19th year), and 1,015,000 in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year); it dropped to 102,000 inhabitants in 1864 and, again, rose to 309,000 in 1876, including 177,000 men and 132,000 women. Therefore, the population in 1876 is more reliable than the population in 1864. Based on the above data, there could be about 299,000 inhabitants in 1865, and the population loss rate of Jiangyin county probably reached 70.5% during the war. According to Vol. 4 of The Records of Jingjiang County compiled in the Tongzhi period, the population of Jingjiang county along the north bank of the Yangtze River kept growing since it was not affected by the war. The population of Changzhou fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was about 3,896,000 inhabitants. With the population growth rate of 4‰, the population

256

Chapter 10

of Changzhou fu could reach 4,409,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). Given that the population of Jingjiang accounted for one-eighth of the population of the eight counties in Changzhou fu, the other seven counties had a total population of about 3,858,000 inhabitants. If the population loss of Jingjiang county was about 69%, i.e., 2,662,000 inhabitants, the remaining population could be 1,196,000 inhabitants. 1.6 Jiangning Fu The average annual population growth rate of Jiangning fu was 6.5‰ in the middle of the Qing Dynasty. It is appropriate to calculate on the basis of 5.5‰ if the growth rate decreased after the mid-Qing Dynasty. It is already known that the population of Jiangning fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 5,252,000 inhabitants, and its population reached 6,225,000 in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). The population loss percentage in Jiangning fu can be estimated based on the situation in Lishui and Gaochun counties. The number of nanding (male population) in these two counties was 374,000 in 1847, and up to 378,000 in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). Nevertheless, the male population was only 92,000 in 1874 (Tongzhi 13th year) and might have only been 90,000 in 1865, a loss of 76%. As Jiangning fu was the center of the Taiping War, the population loss in its counties, including Liuhe and Jiangpu, did not differ largely. Therefore, the population loss of Jiangning fu during the war was estimated to have been 4,731,000 inhabitants, given that only 1,494,000 inhabitants were left. The average annual population growth rate of Jiangning fu from 1865 to 1910 was merely 2.8‰, even though it was 13.7‰ from 1910 to 1953. It can be seen that the population data obtained through the census initiated by the New Deal of the late Qing Dynasty were underestimated. In fact, the average annual population growth rate of Jiangning fu was 8.1‰. Based on its population in 1865 and an average annual population growth rate of 7‰, I can extrapolate the population of Jiangning fu in 1910 to approximately 2.045 million inhabitants. In fact, the population officially registered in Jiangning fu was 1,775,000 inhabitants, including 1,067,000 men and 707,000 women with a sex ratio of 1.51:1. If the sex ratio is adjusted to 1.1:1, then the population could increase to 2,037,000 inhabitants. The statistics, revised according to the reported registered population, are more reliable than those obtained through the so-called census initiated by the New Deal. 1.7 Yangzhou Fu Yangzhou fu, which was located at the north bank of the Yangtze River, suffered great losses during the Taiping War. Its southwestern counties of Yizheng, Ganquan (incorporated into Jiangdu county in 1912), and Jiangdu were

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

257

significantly affected by the war. According to Vol. 4 of The Records of Ganquan County compiled in the Guangxu period, the number of dingkou (both male and female population) in the county was 666,000 inhabitants in 1809, but decreased to 240,000 inhabitants in 1881. If the pre-war and post-war points of time are respectively set in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) and 1865, the population loss of Ganquan county could be as high as 72.5%. Given that the total population of the aforementioned three counties accounted for three-eighths of that of the eight counties under the jurisdiction of Yangzhou fu, the population loss of Yangzhou fu during the war could be as high as 27%. Based on the above data, Yangzhou fu had a population, in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), of about 7.981 million inhabitants and its war-related deaths were 2.155 million inhabitants. Therefore, the remaining population was 5.826 million inhabitants. Other areas were war-free zones that they suffered no loss at all. The calculation of the population of each fu in pre-war and postwar periods and 1910 is not elaborated here. 1.8 Summary During the Taiping War, altogether 16,789,000 people died in the seven fu of Jiangning, Yangzhou, Zhenjiang, Changzhou, Suzhou, Songjiang, and Taicang. Within the same period, the population of other fu in northern Jiangsu increased by 490,000 inhabitants while the population of the whole province decreased by 16.3 million inhabitants. Its post-war population was about 63.6% of the pre-war population. The average annual growth rate of Jiangsu Province from 1880(Guangxu 6th year) to 1953 was 6.5‰, however, it will drop to 4.6‰ with the exclusion of the population of Shanghai. 2

Zhejiang

The Taiping War lasted for seven years from 1858 when Shi Dakai led the Taiping troops to occupy Jiangshan, Changshan, and Kaihua in Quzhou fu, then to 1864 when the Taiping army was defeated and expelled from Zhejiang by the Qing troops. The war caused large-scale deaths. 2.1 Jiaxing Fu The household number of each county in Jiaxing fu in 1838 and 1873 is recorded in the “Household and Population,” Vol. 20 of The Record of Jiaxing Fu compiled during the Guangxu period. The data of counties such as Jiashan, Pinghu, and Haiyan are obviously fabricated. Jiaxing and Xiushui were fuguo counties of Jiaxing fu (dependent counties located in the city of Jiaxing fu). From 1873

258

Chapter 10

to 1953, the average annual growth rate of the two counties was 5.9‰—a high growth rate that has a bearing with a large number of postwar migrants. In contrast, Shimen and Tongxiang counties had fewer migrants. Therefore, the average annual population growth rates of the two counties from 1873 to 1953 were 3.8 ‰ and 4.2 ‰, respectively. It can be seen that from the postwar period to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Jiaxing fu was about 4‰, the same as the pre-war growth rate. If I base my regression analysis on this rate, then the population of Jiaxing fu was about 1,091,000 inhabitants in 1865 and 1,306,000 in 1910. According to the discussion in Chapter 3, from 1776 to 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the average annual population growth rate of Jiaxing fu was 4‰. Based on the data of 1838, I can extrapolate the population of Jiaxing in 1858 was about 3.178 million inhabitants. After the war, its population was only 34.3% of the pre-war population, meaning there was a loss of 2.087 million inhabitants and a mortality rate of 65.7%. 2.2 Hangzhou Fu As the strategic center for the confrontation between the Taiping army and the Qing troops, the city of Hangzhou witnessed massive deaths. Records showed that 140,000 inhabitants in the city of Hangzhou were slaughtered,3 and “the enemy attacked from four directions cutting out food supplies to the city. More than 100,000 inhabitants died of starvation within one month.”4 In 1858, the population of Hangzhou fu was 3,721,000 inhabitants. Meanwhile, according to Vol. 57 of The Record of Hangzhou Fu compiled in the Republic of China, the indigenous population of the whole fu in 1585 was 720,000 inhabitants, accounting for only 19.4% of its pre-war population. The Taiping War caused a loss of 3 million inhabitants in Hangzhou fu, taking up 80.6% of its total population. 2.3 Huzhou Fu In 1858 before the Taiping War, the population of Huzhou fu was about 2.989 million inhabitants. According to Ge Qinghua (2002),5 the population loss of the seven counties under the jurisdiction of Huzhou fu during the Taiping War 3 Anonymous author(s). The Records of the Southeast. A Compilation of The Documents of the Taipingtianguo (Book 5), 232. 4 Anonymous author(s). (1983). A Brief Records of Invasions. Selected Historical Materials of the Taipingtianguo in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui and Henan (p. 191). Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House. 5 Ge, Q. (2002). A Study of Population Migration in the Border Area of Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Anhui in Modern China (pp. 33–36). Shanghai: Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press.

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

259

was 2.357 million inhabitants; however, only 632,000 remained after the war, meaning the population loss rate was 78.9%. 2.4 Yanzhou Fu Located in the hills and mountains of western Zhejiang Province, Yanzhou fu (present-day Meicheng Town in the northeast part of Jiande city) was where the Taiping army and the Qing troops were engaged in wars. Dai Pan, governor of Yanzhou Prefecture, wrote, “After the chaos in Yanzhou Prefecture, people were scarcely seen on the streets. In total, Seven out of ten people in, five out of ten people in Tonglu and Shouchang, four out of ten in Chunan and Jiande, and two out of ten in Fenshui survived.” Based on the household population of each county in 1754 recorded in Vol. 9 of The Record of Yanzhou fu compiled in the Guangxu period, I find that the population loss rate of Yanzhou fu during the war was as high as 54%. Based on the statistics of each county recorded in Daming Yitongzhi (Comprehensive Geography of the Great Ming Dynasty) compiled in the Tianshun period, I calculate the population loss rate of Yanzhou fu to be about 58%. In 1858, the population of Yanzhou fu was 1,019,000 inhabitants; however, after the war, it was 469,000, meaning 550,000 inhabitants perished. With 300,000 migrants entering its household registration, the average annual population growth rate of Yanzhou fu from 1865 to 1953 was about 6‰. Accordingly, its population was about 614,000 inhabitants in 1910. 2.5 Quzhou Fu and Jinhua Fu Jinqu Basin was the major pass for the Taiping army to enter and leave Zhejiang and Jiangxi provinces, and its population loss was huge during the war. For example, after the war in Longyou, “less than one-tenth of the inhabitants of the county survived. Three out of ten Kemin [non-locals or migrants] were from Wenchu and the remaining from Guangfeng in Jiangxi.”6 Xi’an and Longyou counties were at the center of the war zone, so they lost at least 70% of their entire population. The mortality rate in the marginal area of Jinqu Basin was a little lower. According to Vol. 1 of The Record of Jiangshan County compiled in the Tongzhi period, the population of Jiangshan county was 55,000 inhabitants in 1859. It remained 184,000 in 1871, meaning there was a decrease of 28%. It is possible to determine, by going back to 1865 using the regression analysis, that the population loss rate of Jiangshan may be up to 30%.

6 Yu, En. (The Republic of China Period). A preface to the continued carving of poetry manuscripts in the Lizhi Study. The Records of Longyou County (Vol. 36) Wenzheng IV.

260

Chapter 10

The population of Quzhou fu in 1858 was 1,225,000 inhabitants. However, 50% of the population perished, meaning approximately 610,000 inhabitants died while 610,000 survived. The population of Quzhou fu grew at an average annual rate of 7.3‰ from 1865 to 1953, and it reached 1,158,000 inhabitants in 1953. This is not the natural population growth rate because it includes the high growth of the regional population caused by migrants who moved between the Tongzhi and Guangxu periods. Therefore, the population of Quzhou fu, calculated using the regression analysis method and based on an average annual growth rate of 5‰, was 934,000 inhabitants in 1910. The warfare in the territory of Jinhua fu during the Taipingtianguo period was intense, so there must have been more deaths than in Jiangshan county, but fewer deaths than in the entire Quzhou fu. The population of Jinhua fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 2.55 million inhabitants and 3.082 million in 1858. If 40% of its population perished in the war, then about 1,323,000 inhabitants died, leaving behind a population of about 1,850,000 inhabitants. In 1953, the population of Jinhua fu was 2.95 million, and its average annual population growth rate was 5.3‰ from 1865 to 1953. Based on this given rate and calculating backward using a regression analysis, Jinhua fu had a population of 2.35 million in 1910. 2.6 Chuzhou Fu The population of each county during the Tongzhi and Guangxu periods is well documented in Vol. 11 of RecordChuzhou Prefecture Record compiled during the Tongzhi period. Longquan, Qingtian, and Jingning counties were slightly affected by the war, while Qingyuan was not affected at all. The average annual population growth rates of Longquan and Qingyuan counties during the Tongzhi and Guangxu periods up until 1953 was 5.8‰ and 4.4‰ respectively—hence perceived as natural population growth rates. The household number of Lishui county in 1795 and 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) is listed in Vol. 11 of Chuzhou Prefecture Record compiled in the Guangxu period while the data of 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) are exaggerated. Based on the data of 1795 and the average annual growth rate of 5‰, I extrapolate the population of Lishui County in 1858 was about 239,000 inhabitants; I also work out the average annual population growth rate from 1873 to 1953 to be about 3.7‰. Through a regression analysis, I can learn that the population of Lishui county in 1865 was 104,000 inhabitants, and its population loss during the war was 56.4%. i.e., 135,000 inhabitants. Based on the population figure in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) and the average annual growth rate of 5‰, the population of Chuzhou is estimated to be 1.298 million inhabitants in 1858. The population of Chuzhou fu was 1.339 million

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

261

inhabitants in 1953. Based on the average annual growth rate of 5‰ and going back using the regression analysis method, the population of Chuzhou fu was 863,000 inhabitants in 1865, with a population loss rate of 35%. i.e., 475,000 inhabitants. At the same growth rate, the actual population in 1910 is estimated to be 1.08 million inhabitants. 2.7 Shaoxing Fu According to Vol. 5 of The Record of Xiaoshan County compiled in the Republic of China, the population of Xiaoshan county in 1789 was 687,000 inhabitants. Based on the average annual growth rate of 5.3‰ in the mid-Qing Dynasty, its population was 978,000 inhabitants in 1858. In Vol. 5, the total number of men and women in Xiaoshan county was 414,000 in 1910, and the population was 593,000 inhabitants in 1953, and the average annual population growth rate was 9‰ from 1910 to 1953. However, the data of 1910 seem underestimated because if we move backward using the regression analysis method, based on the 1953 population and an average annual growth rate of 5.3‰, then the population of Xiaoshan in 1865 was 373,000 inhabitants, and there was a 62% population loss or a loss of 605,000 inhabitants. The population of Xiaoshan county in 1953 was 86.3% of the county’s population in 1789. The population of Shaoxing (Shangyin and Huiji counties) in 1953 was 73.1% of its population in 1798, that of Zhuji in 1953 was 60.9% of its population in 1798. In places such as Shaoxing and Zhuji, the population loss rate in the Taiping War may have reached more than 70%. In 1858, the total population of the four counties, including Xianshan was about 4.529 million inhabitants, and its population loss rate was 70%, i.e., 3.17 million inhabitants. Based on the above data, the average annual population growth rate of the four counties in western Shaoxing from 1865 to 1953 was 5‰. According to Vol. 30 of The Record of Shangyu County compiled in the Guangxu period, the population of the eastern part of Shaoxing fu was 142,000 inhabitants in 1869, and 335,000 in 1953, and the average annual growth rate was as high as 10.3‰ from 1869 to 1953. The population of Shangyu county reached 304,000 in 1932, and its average annual growth rate was 4.5‰ up until 1953. Based on this growth rate and projecting backward using the regression analysis method, we deduce the population of Shangyu County was 225,000 inhabitants in 1865, and 484,000 in 1858. The number of inhabitants that perished during the Taiping War was 259,000, i.e., a loss rate of 53.5%. In view of the small population loss in Xinchang county, I set the population loss rate of the four counties in the eastern part of Shaoxing fu at 40%. The total population of the four counties in the eastern part of Shaoxing fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was about 1.648 million inhabitants; about 2.015

262

Chapter 10

million in 1858, with a population loss of 806,000 inhabitants. In total, the population loss of Shaoxing fu was nearly 3.976 million inhabitants, a loss rate of about 60.8%. 2.8 Ningbo Fu According to Vol. 12 of The Record of Cixi County compiled in the Guangxu period, the population of Cixi was 249,000 inhabitants in 1870, and the average annual population growth rate was 1.2‰ up until 1953. According to Vol. 11 of The Record of Xiangshan County compiled in the Republic of China, the population of Xiangshan was 212,000 inhabitants in 1868, and its average annual growth rate of 2.1‰ up until 1953. From 1830 to 1953, Xiangshan had an average annual population growth rate of 2.8‰—a growth rate that is considered natural given that Xiangshan was not significantly affected during the Taiping War. Yinxian and other counties were considerably affected by the war. As a large number of people died, the post-war population growth rate was high. In 1953, the population of Ningbo fu was 2,264,000 inhabitants. If the postwar average annual growth rate of Ningbo fu was set at 3‰, the population would be 1,739,000 inhabitants in 1865. Meanwhile, the population of Ningbo fu was 2,356,000 inhabitants in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), and its population in 1858 would be 2,742,000 inhabitants if I extrapolate by using 4‰ as the average annual growth rate. Thus, the population loss after the war was one million inhabitants, a loss rate of 36.5%. The average annual population growth rate of Ningbo fu from 1910 to 1953 was 2.5‰—a rate that appears quite reasonable. However, during the period of the Republic of China, a large number of Ningbo people moved to Shanghai. Therefore, it is justifiable that the local population in Ningbo did not grow fast. 2.9 Taizhou Fu According to Vol. 4 of The Record of Linhai County compiled in the Republic of China, Bao-jia registers had the population of Linhai county at 467,000 inhabitants in 1871, with an average annual population growth rate of 1.6‰ up until 1953. According to Vol. 4 of Taizhou Fu Record compiled in the Republic of China, the household number of Xianju county in 1869 was about 176,000 inhabitants, and its average annual population growth rate was 2.4‰ in 1953. Vol. 60 of Taizhou Fu Record compiled in The Republic of China maintains: “Taizhou county was populous but not rich. Its growing population led to insufficient arable land, and hundreds of millions of tenant farmers swarmed into Hangzhou, Jiahu, and Ningbo.” Land-based tension resulted in emigration and a decrease in the average annual population growth rate. Consequently, in 1953, the population of Taizhou fu was 2.638 million inhabitants. A regression

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

263

analysis based on the average annual growth rate of 3‰ put the population of Taizhou in 1865 at 2.026 million inhabitants and 2,774,000 in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year). With an average annual growth rate of 3‰, the population in 1858 was 3,108,000 inhabitants. During the war, Taizhou fu lost 1,082,000 inhabitants, i.e., a loss rate of 34.8%. 2.10 Wenzhou Fu According to Vol. 3 of The Records of Yuhuan Ting, the population of Yuhuan county was 124,385 inhabitants in 1877, and its average annual population growth rate was 3.9‰ in 1953. Yuhuan was hardly affected by the Taiping War, so its average annual population growth rate of 3.9‰ appears to be a natural growth rate. It should be noted that this rate was slightly higher than that of other counties along the east coast of Zhejiang, probably due to the fact that a group of unregistered fishermen on Yuhuan Island were included in the local household registration in 1953. In 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Wenzhou fu was 2,016,000 inhabitants; in 1953, it was 3,273,000. From 1820 to 1953, its average annual population growth rate was 3.6‰. This shows that the deaths in Wenzhou fu during the war were not substantially large, meaning the population had grown at a normal rate over the 100 years. 2.11 Summary The ten provinces of Hangzhou, Jiaxing, Huzhou, Yanzhou, Shaoxing, Ningbo, Dizhou, Quzhou, Jinhua, and Taizhou in Zhejiang Province had a total population of 28.906 million inhabitants before the war. However, only 12.565 million inhabitants remained after the war, meaning there was a population loss of 16.341 million inhabitants, i.e., a reduction rate of 56.5%. 3

Anhui

Anhui was one of the main battlefields where the Taiping army fought with the Qing troops. Almost all fu in Jiangnan and Anqing fu, Luzhou fu, and Fengyang fu in Jiangbei were indeed battlefields. The whole Anhui Province, with the exception of Yingzhou fu in the northwest part of Anhui, was involved in this major war which lasted for eleven years. 3.1 Guangde Zhou Guangde zhou (Prefecture) was located at the border area of Suzhou, Zhejiang, and Anhui provinces. The Taiping army entered and retreated from Zhejiang

264

Chapter 10

via Guangde Prefecture where battles with the Qing troops were quite intense. In Vol. 16 of f Guangde Prefecture Record compiled in the Guangxu period, the local population that survived the disaster described their experience as follows, “more than half of the residents died  …” during the five years from 1860 to 1864, “crops did not grow and food ran to the point people were eating each other, and then the plague came. The corpses cluttered up, and the roads became thorny because there were no people alive within dozens of miles.” In Vol. 16 of Guangde Prefecture Record compiled in the Guangxu period, there are also records about the indigenous population and the population of Kemin, Guangde Prefecture, in 1850, 1855, 1865, 1869, and 1880 (Guangxu 6th year). It is evident that the population loss rate of Guangde Prefecture during the Taiping War was as high as 93.5%. From 1880 (Guangxu 6th year) to 1953, the average annual population growth rate was 8.7‰. The average annual population growth rate of Guangde Prefecture in the mid-Qing Dynasty was 5.6‰. If I set its average annual growth rate 5‰ from 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) to 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) at 5‰, then the population of Guangde county in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) was about 643,000 inhabitants, with a population loss rate of 93.5%. After the war, the population in Guangde county was about 42,000 inhabitants and its population loss was 601,000 inhabitants. However, considering that the average annual growth rate was 8.7‰, its population must have been about 279,000 inhabitants in 1910. 3.2 Ningguo Fu Deaths in Ningguo county were mainly due to the plague epidemic after the war. According to Vol. 14 of The Records of Ningguo County compiled in the Republic of China, “three out of ten people in Ningguo perished as a result of massacres, and seven out of ten as a result of the plague. Less than one out of ten people who fled to other places returned.” According to the “Food and Money” in The General Records of Ningguo County compiled in the Tongzhi period, Kemin in Ningguo accounted for 76.9% of the total population. According to Wan Zheng Jiyao (The Record of Administrative Affairs in Anhui), the registered population of migrants in Ningguo county was 120,131 inhabitants. In comparison, the indigenous population was only 26,923 inhabitants, accounting for 18.3% of its total population. This population figure is significantly close to the percentage of the post-war indigenous people of Guangde Prefecture. The average annual population growth rate of Ningguo county from 1904 to 1953 was 6.7‰. According to Vol. 7 of The Record of Xuancheng County compiled in the Guangxu period, the population of Xuancheng reached 1.28 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and only 251,000 in 1868. The total population of Xuancheng, including earlier and later residents and farmers cultivating

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

265

on land under the Tuntian system, was 319,000 in 1887 and 588,000 in 1953. The average annual population growth rate of Xuancheng from 1887 to 1953 was 9.3‰. From this high population growth rate, I infer that migrants continued to move to Xuancheng after 1887. According to Wan Zheng Jiyao, the population of locals and residents with temporary household registration in Xuancheng county was 259,000 in 1904, much less than recorded in The Record of Xuancheng County. This is probably due to the policy of Xuancheng that people who came from other places were forbidden to cultivate wasteland, and those who did so would be denied Xuancheng household registration. In fact, farmers who were accounted for in the household registration of Xuancheng county after the Taiping War made up 90% of its local population. Therefore, a regression analysis back to 1868 indicates the percentage of migrants must have been less than 90% at the time. If we take 80% as the percentage of migrants, the population of local residents would be 50,000. The population loss rate of Xuancheng during, therefore, was as high as 96%. Using the same method, I estimate that the population loss rate of Nanling county during the war was about 76.8%. According to Wan Zheng Jiyao, the population of local residents of Jing county were 10 times more than that of “guests” or residents who settled later after the war, so the population loss of local residents was quite small. According to Ge Qinghua’s research citations, the population loss rate in Jingde and Taiping counties was as high as 90%. According to Wan Zheng Jiyao, these two counties’ average annual population growth rate after the war was 6.1‰ and 8.5‰, respectively. The population of Ningguo fu was 3,433,000 inhabitants in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year). Based on the average annual growth rate of 5‰, its population in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) is estimated to be about 4 million inhabitants. In 1953, the population of Ningguo fu was 1,420,000 inhabitants, and the average annual growth rate was 7.6‰ from 1934 to 1953. The data of the counties mentioned above prove that from the post-war year 1904 to 1953, their average annual growth rate was about between 6‰ and 8‰. Using regression analysis based on the average annual growth rate of 7‰, then the population of Ningguo fu was about 768,000 inhabitants in 1865, and the population loss of 3,323,000 inhabitants accounted for 80.8% of the total population. In 1910, the population of Ningguo fu was 1,052,000 inhabitants. 3.3 Chizhou Fu In addition to deaths in the Taiping War, the major plague in 1864 also spread to Chizhou. According to The Record of Important Events: The Memo Compilation on Shidai in the Republic of China, in Shidai county, “the pandemic was prevalent, and corpses could be seen everywhere. In the first lunar month of 1864

266

Chapter 10

(3rd year of Tongzhi), residents returned to their homes successively, but only one or two out of ten survived.” If we add those childless households, the population loss rate in Shidai county during the war was at least 90%. In 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), the population of Chizhou fu was 2.755 million inhabitants. Based on the average annual growth rate of 5 ‰, we estimate the population of Chizhou fu to be about 3.22 million in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). If we suppose that the population loss of Chizhou was between that of Guangde and Ningguo, say 85%, that would mean the Chizhou lost 2.74 million inhabitants, with a remaining indigenous population of about 480,000 inhabitants. According to Wan Zheng Jiyao, the jiji (guests or migrants accounted for in the household registration of Chizhou) population accounted for 21.8% of its total population. Therefore, the population of Chizhou in 1865 could be 614,000 inhabitants, and its average annual population growth rate was 5.3‰. From 1934 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Chizhou fu was 6.7‰. Based on this rate and going back to 1865 using a regression analysis, the population of Chizhou fu was 540,000 inhabitants, including a jiji population of 21.8% and an indigenous population of 420,000 inhabitants. Accordingly, the population loss of Chizhou was 2.8 million inhabitants, a loss rate of 87%. Based on this rate, the population of Chizhou fu in 1910 is estimated to be about 729,000 inhabitants. 3.4 Taiping Fu In 1953, the population of Fanchang county accounted for 20.3% of the population of the whole fu. Excluding the high population growth in Wuhu city during the Republic of China, the pre-war population of Fanchang county accounted for 23.3% of the entire fu population. Accordingly, the population of Fanchang county was about 400,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), while it was only 235,000 inhabitants in 1953, accounting for 59% of the pre-war population. Based on my survey, about 30% of the county’s inhabitants were migrants who settled there after the Taiping War. Therefore, the indigenous population was actually only 165,000 inhabitants. In 1934, the population of Fanchang county was 215,000 inhabitants, and its average annual growth rate was 5.1‰ up until 1953. Based on this rate and going back using a regression analysis, the population of Fanchang county was about 100,000 inhabitants in 1865, and its population loss during the war was 300,000 inhabitants, i.e., a loss rate of 75%. From 1934 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Dangtu and Wuhu was 20.3‰, mainly due to the development of Wuhu city. In 1953, the Wuhu city had as many as 242,000 inhabitants, and the average annual population growth rate of Taiping fu was only 2.4‰ after deducting the population of Wuhu. From this point of view, the population loss of Taiping fu can be

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

267

speculated on the basis of that of Fanchang county. The population of Taiping fu was about 1.73 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and the population loss was 1.3 million inhabitants, a loss rate of 75%. After the war, the indigenous population was only about 430,000 inhabitants, meaning the total population of Fanchang county was 540,000 inhabitants. 3.5 Huizhou Fu The population loss of Huizhou during the Taiping War was caused by massacres, famine, and plagues. Hu Zaiwei pointed out in Book II of Huinan Aiyin (The Tragic Voice during the Disasters of Huizhou) that 20% to 30% of the population of Huizhou died from massacres due to war and 60% to 70% from plagues. According to Vol. 13 of The Record of Qimen County compiled in the Tongzhi period, the population of Qimen was 470,000 inhabitants in 1825. Based on the average annual growth rate of 3‰, its population was 510,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). Only 100,000 inhabitants of the county survived in 1870 and there were 410,000 deaths that accounted for 80% of the pre-war population. In 1953, the population of Qimen county was only 81,000 inhabitants. It is questionable why the population decreased rather than increased after the war. Huizhou fu was densely populated but had limited arable land. People in Huizhou were engaged in business and lived a well-to-do life. This group of people who did business out of the county was included in the local household register while others were not. The population of Qimen in 1870 included the businessmen living outside the county. Since the pre-war population may have also included these businessmen, it is not necessary to re-estimate the population loss rate. According to Vol. 3 of The Record of She County compiled in the Republic of China, the population of She county was 620,000 inhabitants in 1827 and probably 670,000 in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). Only 316,000 inhabitants survived after the war in 1869, and the population loss was 353,000 inhabitants, accounting for 53% of the pre-war population. In 1953, the population of She county (including Tunxi city) reached 408,000 inhabitants, with an average annual population growth rate from 1869 to 1953 of 3.3‰. According to Vol. 9 of The Four Records of Yi Country compiled in the Guangxu period, the population of Yi county was 246,000 inhabitants in 1801 and probably 290,000 in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). In 1867, the population was 155,000 inhabitants, with a population loss rate of 46.6%. Similar to the situation in Qimen, the population of Yi county was only 54,000 inhabitants in 1953, and its registered population largely decreased over the 86 years.

268

Chapter 10

There are two assumptions: First, the population loss rate of Huizhou was about 60%. The population of Huizhou fu was 2.475 million inhabitants in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), and about 2.715 million in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). Meanwhile, during the war, 1.63 million inhabitants perished, while 1.085 million survived. However, the old area of Huizhou fu had a population of only 949,000 inhabitants in 1953, and the population decreased during the 88 years between the war and 1953. The fact that the population of Huizhou did not increase but decreased suggests Huizhou businessmen were not included in the local household registers. Second, the average annual population growth rate of Huizhou fu from 1934 to 1953 was 3.3‰, a suggestion the permanent residents of Huizhou fu were about 705,000 inhabitants in 1865. Compared with the previous estimation, about 35% of the population moved out of Huizhou fu after the war. The population of Huizhou fu in 1910 reached 1,015,000 inhabitants, exceeding that of 1953. This fact shows that the household survey of Huizhou in 1910 was still conducted according to some local customary declaration practice, which was quite different from the modern census based on the principle of investigating the current residence. The population of Huizhou fu in 1904 was only 829,000 inhabitants, and its sex ratio was 111—a ratio close to the normal standard. The average annual population growth rate from 1904 to 1953 was 2.8‰. By comparison, the data of 1904 is more reliable than that of 1910. A regression analysis of the population based on the average annual growth rate of 3.3‰ from 1953 indicates the population of Huizhou fu in 1910 was about 823,000 inhabitants. 3.6 Anqing Fu During the Taiping War, the Anqing Defense War lasted for eleven years. The population of Anqing was about 6.4 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and 3.218 million in 1953, only accounting for 50.3% of the pre-war (KMT-CPC civil war) population. In addition to those who died in the war, a considerable number of Anqing inhabitants moved to Chizhou, Ningguo, Guangde in Jiangnan and Chuzhou in Jiangbei, and even to southern Jiangsu and Zhejiang. Based on the average annual growth rate of 3.3‰, the population of Anqing fu is estimated to be about 2.165 million inhabitants in 1889. The dominant migrating population in Chizhou was migrants from Anqing. Among the 310,000 migrants received by Chizhou, at least half came from Anqing fu. This means that about 150,000 to 160,000 people moved to Chizhou. With Anqing people who moved to other areas, the number of Anqing migrants in 1889 might reach 400,000. If so, the indigenous population of Anqing in 1889 was about 3 million inhabitants and 2.8 million back in 1865;

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

269

its population loss was 3.6 million inhabitants, accounting for 56% of the total population during the pre-war period. From 1934 to 1953, the population of Anqing fu grew at an average annual rate of 2.1‰. If I make a regression analysis on the basis of this growth rate, the population of Anqing was 2.6 million inhabitants in 1865, similar to the result estimated above. If I make a regression analysis and go back from 1953 with the average annual growth rate of 2.1‰, the population of Anqing fu was 2,849,000 inhabitants in 1910. 3.7 Luzhou Fu Based on the population growth rate of the mid-Qing Dynasty, the population of Luzhou fu is estimated to be about 4.165 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) and 4.34 million in 1953, with an average annual population growth rate of 0.4‰. During the Xianfeng period, Luzhou fu (present-day Hefei city) experienced a brutal siege. After the Taiping army occupied Luzhou fu, the Qing troops surrounded and besieged the city. Battles occurred mainly around Luzhou fucheng (prefectural capital) while the Taiping army was confined inside the city, thereby limiting the number of deaths. Let’s suppose that the population growth rate of Luzhou fu after the war was the same as that of Yingzhou fu, say 4.5‰, then the population was about 3 million inhabitants in 1865. Supposing the migrant population of Luzhou after the war was similar to that of Anqing, say about 400,000 people, then the indigenous population of Luzhou was nearly 3.4 million inhabitants. The population loss of Luzhou in the war was, therefore, only about 760,000 inhabitants, accounting for 18.2% of the pre-war population. That would mean the population of Luzhou fu in 1910 was about 3,622,000 inhabitants. 3.8 Yingzhou Fu Yingzhou fu was almost not affected by the war. Its population was 4.67 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) and 7.369 million in 1953, and its average annual growth rate was 4.5‰ between 1851 and 1953. The population of Yingzhou fu was 4.964 million inhabitants in 1865 and 6.075 million in 1910. 3.9 Liu’an Zhou The total population of Liu’an zhou (prefecture) was about 1,682,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), but it was only 1,523,000 in 1953. There was no large-scale migration into the prefecture after the Taiping War. Supposing the average annual population growth rate of Liu’an zhou from 1865 to 1953 was the same as that of Yingzhou fu, say 4.5 ‰. That would mean its total population in 1865 was about 1,031,000 inhabitants, and its population loss during the war

270

Chapter 10

was about 651,000, accounting for 38.7% of the total population. In 1910, the population of Liu’an Prefecture was 1,297,000 inhabitants. 3.10 Fengyang Fu The population of Fengyang fu increased from 5,113,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) to 5,797,000 inhabitants in 1953, with an average annual growth rate of 1.3‰. By comparison, the population loss of Fengyang fu was much less than that of other regions. In the case of Yingzhou fu, if we suppose that its average annual natural growth rate was 4.5‰ from 1953 back to 1865, its population could be 3,444,000 inhabitants, accounting for 67.4% of the pre-war population. That means 1,669,000 inhabitants perished due to the war. Based on the average annual natural growth rate, the population of Fengyang fu was 4,779,000inhabitants in 1910. 3.11 Sizhou, Chuzhou and Hezhou In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Sizhou Zhilizhou was 1,842,000 inhabitants, and 2,109,000 in 1953; Similar to that of Fengyang fu, its average annual growth rate was 1.4‰. Supposing that Fengyang fu had an average annual growth rate of 4.5‰, then its population in 1889 was about 1,589,000 inhabitants. According to the Wan Zheng Jiyao (Essentials of the Anhui Government Affairs), about 20% of the population, i.e., 318,000 inhabitants, were non-locals, while the indigenous population was 1,271,000. Regressed at the same rate, the indigenous population was about 1,146,000 inhabitants in 1865; meanwhile, the population loss during the war reached 696,000 inhabitants, accounting for 37.8% of the pre-war population. The records have it that “no more than one out of ten people survived” or “no more than one out of a hundred people survived” after the war in southern Anhui. According to Vol. 2 of The Records of Chuzhou Prefecture compiled in the Guangxi period, “no more than three or four out of ten people survived.” Obviously, there were more survivors in Chuzhou than in the southern Anhui region. In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Chuzhou was about 704,000 inhabitants and, in 1953, the population was 628,000 inhabitants— slightly less than the pre-war population. If we assume the population loss was 65%, that would mean the remaining population was about 246,000 inhabitants. According to Wan Zheng Jiyao, in 1904, migrants in Chuzhou accounted for 33.6% of its total population. If we believe the migration ended in 1865, then the actual population of Chuzhou after the war would be 370,000 inhabitants. From 1865 to 1953, the average annual growth rate of Chuzhou was 6‰; therefore, the population of Chuzhou in 1910 was about 486,000 inhabitants. The population of Hezhou was about 502,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) and increased to 696,000 inhabitants in 1953, while the average annual population growth rate was 3.2‰—a rate almost identical to the pre-war

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

271

population growth rate of Anhui. Accordingly, it can be roughly concluded that this region was not ravaged by major wars or replenished by migrants. From the history of the Taiping war, we can find that although the Taiping army passed Hezhou several times, it did not stay there for a long time, and there was no large-scale war in Hezhou. This is probably the fundamental reason Hezhou remained intact. 3.12 Summary In total, the population of Anhui excluding Yingzhou and Hezhou was 32,124,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and 14,432,000 in 1865 with a net population decrease of 17,782,000 inhabitants that accounted for 55.2% of the pre-war population but almost the same as that of the war zones in Zhejiang. As far as individual regions are concerned, the population loss rate of the six fu in southern Anhui was as high as 81.5%, while that of the northern war zone was 39.4%. The population loss in south Anhui was largely a result of the devastating epidemic during the war. In Guangde, Taiping, Chuzhou, Chizhou, and Ningguo, the high average annual population growth rate from 1865 to 1953 was due to the influx of migrants rather than a natural increase in population. Meanwhile, in other areas, especially in northern Anhui, fewer migrants arrived after the war than in the prewar time. Many people moved to other areas, which led to a rather low local population growth. 4

Fujian

Due to the lack of data, it is not possible to analyze the population loss of Fujian province fu by fu in this section. We can only briefly analyze it as follows: a comparison of the 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) data of each fu with the 1953 data indicates that, except the four fu, including Fanning, Fuzhou, Xinghua, and Quanzhou, the population growth of the other seven fu was negative, an indication that the impact of the Taiping War was strong. In 1953, the population of Shaowu fu accounted only for 43% of the population in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year). In addition, the population of Shaowu fu was 51% that of Zhangzhou fu, 63% that of Jianning fu, 77% that of Yanping fu, 80% that of Longyan fu, 81% that of Tingzhou fu, and 91% that of Yongchun fu. During the Xianfeng period, the Taiping army was active in the northwest Fujian area. The plague was an epidemic that led to the death of a significant number of people. Deaths in northwest Fujian mainly occurred in Shaowu, and then spread to Jianning fu, Yanping fu, and Tingzhou fu, respectively. During the Tongzhi period, Li Shixian, and Wang Haiyang, key leaders of the Taiping army, jointly fought in Fujian and Guangdong with nearly 400,000 soldiers, then entered Fujian from Tingzhou fu several times and went to Zhangzhou via Longyan. The center of

272

Chapter 10

the war was in Zhangzhou fu, which became the southern base of the remaining Taiping army. Given this scenario, there was a considerable reduction in the population of Zhangzhou fu. However, the reason is unknown yet why the population of Yongchun Prefecture declined even if it was not affected by the Taiping army. If we compare the 1910 data of each fu with the 1953 data, the negative population growth in Jianning, Shaowu, and Yanping appears unjustifiable. The average annual growth rate of 14‰ in Yongchun and Xinghua is also problematic. Excluding the data of these five fu, the average annual population growth rate of the remaining fu from 1910 to 1953 was 2.5‰. Therefore, it is possible to make a simple estimation of the population loss during the war in the six fu and prefectures—Shaowu, Jianning, Tingzhou, Longyan, Yanping, and Zhangzhou. Based on the data of 1953 and an average annual growth rate of 2‰, going back by means of regression analysis indicates the total population of the six fu and prefectures in 1865 was about 4.259 million inhabitants. According to the population growth rate in the mid-Qing Dynasty, the total population of the six fu and prefectures was about 8.747 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year)—a decrease of 4.48 million inhabitants. Proof for this analysis can be found in historical sources. Although Yanping fu was not the main battlefield of the Taiping War, there was large-scale destruction and a significantly high number of deaths. According to Vol. 7 of The Records of Shunchang County, after the government troops regained control of the county, only a few men and hundreds of women remained in the city. In the city as well as the countryside, nine out of ten houses were empty, and “seven or eight out of ten people were kemin.” 5

Jiangxi

Jiangxi Province was the main battlefield of the Taiping Uprising. No post-war census was ever conducted in Jiangxi. Therefore, based on the population data of the Republic of China, I calculate the population growth rate7 to determine the population of each fu of Jiangxi in 1865. 7 According to Vol. 47 of The General Records of Jiangxi compiled in the Guangxu period, the population of each county of Jiangxi in 1869 was obtained by slighly revising the 1851 population, but the data are not reliable. The population figures of 1916 and 1931 can be found in Vol. 1, No. 17 of Jingji Xunbao (The Economic Journal) (1933) and the first issue of The Quarterly Journal of Statistics on the Internal Affairs (1936) edited by the Statistical Office of the Ministry of the Interior and published by Guohua Printing House. The unrevised population

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

273

5.1 Nanchang Fu In 1853, the Taiping army attacked Nanchang city and besieged the city for 93 days, even though they finally failed to enter the city. The long duration of the siege, as well as fierce battles caused substantial population losses in the areas around the city of Nanchang. From 1931 to 1953, Nanchang county’s average annual population growth rate was as high as 22.1‰, while that of Xinjian County was −18.2‰. Although Nanchang and Xinjian counties were under the jurisdiction of the same fu, they were separated by Ganjiang River; therefore, they should not be viewed as one county. If we add the population of Nanchang, Xinjian, Fengcheng, and Jinxian in our estimation, the average annual population growth rate over the 22 years could be 6.8‰. Although this rate seemed quite reasonable, the data of each county is apparently unrealistic. Based on the average annual population growth rate of 5‰ and going back by means of regression analysis, we calculate the population of Nanchang fu to be about 1,871,000 inhabitants in 1865, and 2,164,000 in 1910. In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Nanchang fu was 4,233,000 inhabitants, and the population loss during the war was 2,368,000 inhabitants, accounting for 55.8% of the pre-war population. Yining, for its part, had a population in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) of 338,000 inhabitants, and deaths in its capital city during the war were 100,000 inhabitants, accounting for 26.6% of the total population. However, the percentage of deaths must have exceeded 50% with the inclusion of the deaths in the countryside. 5.2 Jiujiang Fu In Vol. 24 of Jiujiang Fu Records compiled in the Tongzhi period, more details can be found about the war rather than the comments on the impact of the war upon the whole society. In Vol. 10 of The Records of Hukou County compiled in the Tongzhi period, mostly the deaths caused by cholera during the war were reported. The Taiping army came from the area of Chizhou prefectural capital in south Anhui, while Hukou and its surrounding areas belonged to the same pandemic zone. The population in 1871 reported in Vol. 4 of The Records of Hukou County compiled in the Tongzhi period was much bigger than the population in 1953. In addition, it does not appear reliable. The post-war population recorded in Vol. 3 of The Records of Pengze County, compiled in the same period, was the same as that in 1953, which is also unreliable. However, from 1916 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Pengze County was 3.4‰. Taking data of the sex ratio in 1936 were mostly higher than the normal. In this section, sex ratios are adjusted based on the 105 ratio.

274

Chapter 10

into account the urban development of Jiujiang after the Republic of China, I determined its average annual population growth rate from 1965 to 1953 was 4‰. Therefore, the population of Jiujiang fu was about 501,000 inhabitants in 1865 and 600,000 in 1910. In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Jiujiang fu was about 1,508,000 inhabitants, and the loss was 1,007,000 inhabitants during the war, accounting for 66.8% of the total pre-war population of the whole fu. The percentage of population loss in Jiujiang fu exceeded that of Nanchang. 5.3 Nankang Fu According to Vol. 11 of The Chronical of Nankang Fu compiled in the Tongzhi period, among the four war-afflicted counties in Nankang, Duchang, and Jianchang counties were the most severely affected. In contrast, Anyi county only experienced some trouble in its west, and Xingzi county had no wars on record. From 1928 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Xingzi county was 5.4‰, that of Duchang was 1‰, and the total average rate of the two counties was 2.1‰. Their population in 1928 exceeded that of 1953, which is not reliable. Based on an average annual growth rate of 3‰, the population of Nangkang is estimated to be about 477,000 inhabitants in 1865 and about 546,000 in 1910. Given that the population of Nankang, in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), was 1.1 million inhabitants, it decreased by about 620,000 inhabitants during the Taiping War, with a population loss rate of 56%. 5.4 Ruizhou Fu According to Vol. 6 of Ruizhou Fu Records compiled in the Tongzhi period, the Taiping army led by Shi Dakai conquered the prefectural capital in 1855 and occupied it for nearly two years. In 1861, the war started again. After the war, however, roughly 30 to 40% displaced Ruizhou people returned to their hometown, and it is estimated that two-thirds of the population died in the war. In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Ruizhou fu was 1,134,000 inhabitants, including the two-thirds killed in the war. The population loss of Ruizhou was 756,000 inhabitants, and only 378,000 inhabitants survived after the war. Up until 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Ruizhou fu was 5.1‰. Accordingly, the population of Ruizhou fu in 1910 was about 464,000 inhabitants. 5.5 Linjiang Fu According to Vol. 11 of Linjiang Fu Records compiled in the Tongzhi period, the division of the Taiping army led by Shi Dakai burned down Zhangshu Town in

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

275

1855. In 1857, Taiping army and Qing troops were engaged in fierce battles in the areas from Xiajiang to Qingjiang. The siege of Linjiang prefectural capital was one of the most intense and brutal wars in central Jiangxi. The county town of Xingan was occupied three times and regained three times, a sign that the war was fierce. After comparing with the data in 1953, we determine that the data from Vol. 3 of The Records of Xiajiang County, Vol. 4 of The Records of Qingjiang County both compiled in the Tongzhi period, and the data from the Republic of China were not reliable. After revising the data of the Republic of China, I calculated the population of Linjiang fu in 1910 was about 589,000 inhabitants, and the average annual population growth rate, till 1953, was 2.6‰. If the population of Linjiang grew at the same rate from the postwar time to 1910, then it was 524,000 inhabitants in 1865. The actual population of Linjiang in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) was about 1,236,000 inhabitants, meaning up to 802,000 inhabitants may have perished during the war. 5.6 Jianchang Fu According to Vol. 5 of Jiangchan Fu Records compiled in the Tongzhi period, the Taiping army occupied Jianchang prefectural capital in February of 1856, and Jianchang fu was involved in wars. The cities under the jurisdiction of Jianchang prefectural capital were taken over by different forces. Records on long sieges, massacres, captivities, and plagues were not uncommon. According to Vol. 4 of The Records of Nanfeng County compiled in the Republic of China, the population of Nanfeng was 418,000 inhabitants in 1827, and 170,000 inhabitants in 1867. Based on the average annual growth rate of 3‰, the population of Nanfeng County was 461,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). That means the population loss during the Taiping War was 291,000 inhabitants, a loss ratio of 67%. In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Jianchang fu was 1,427,000 inhabitants. Based on the population loss in Nanfeng County, 956,000 inhabitants perished in Jianchang fu, leaving behind only 471,000 inhabitants. From the post-war period to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Jianchang fu was 1.8‰. If its average annual population growth rate of Jianchang fu from the post-war period to 1910 was 3‰, then its population could be 539,000 inhabitants in 1910. 5.7 Yuanzhou Fu Massive number of wars and massacres were recorded in Vol. 5 of The Records of Yuanzhou fu compiled in the Tongzhi period. Examples are omitted here. Given that the population of Yuanzhou was 722,000 inhabitants in 1821, and

276

Chapter 10

based on the average annual growth rate of 4‰, the population of Yuanzhou fu was 816,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). Meanwhile, there was a 20% population loss rate, i.e., about 163,000 inhabitants. Based on the post-war population and the average annual growth rate of 5‰, the population of Yuanzhou fu in 1910 was about 817,000 inhabitants. 5.8 Raozhou Fu In 1863, Poyang county experienced a plague. According to Vol. 21 of The Records of Poyang County, “In the early 7th lunar month, Taiping rebels began to retreat. The plague spread in summer among the villages ravaged by the rebels. People died one after another, and only one or two out of ten people survived.” However, those who had no contact with outside invaders were not affected by the epidemic. By comparison, the data of 1936 are more reliable than those of 1928. However, the population of Fuliang and Poyang counties remains problematic. If the two counties are deducted, the annual average population growth rate of Raozhou fu from 1936 to 1953 would be 4.1‰. Based on this rate, the population of Raozhou fu could be 1.238 million inhabitants after the war. In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Raozhou fu was about 2.064 million inhabitants, while in 1910, it was 1.522 million inhabitants, and its average annual growth rate of 3.6‰ lasted until 1953. 5.9 Guangxin Fu If Yiyang, Lingshan, and Xing’an counties were excluded from the estimation, the average annual population growth rate of the remaining four counties from 1928 to 1953 would be 4.8‰. If we take into account the deaths and population outflow caused by the Chinese Civil War and industrial and commercial depression in Yiyang and other three counties, the average annual population growth rate from the post-war period to 1953 could be lower. Based on the growth rate of 3‰, the population of Guangxin fu was 1.181 million inhabitants in 1865, and 1.41 million inhabitants in 1910. The average annual population growth rate was 2‰ up until 1953—a rate that appears reliable. In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Guangxin fu was about 1,746,000 inhabitants. During the Taiping war, 565,000 inhabitants perished, meaning there was a loss rate of 32.4‰. 5.10 Fuzhou Fu The battles in Fuzhou fu were fierce and lasted for a long time. Numerous records in Vol. 34 of The Records of Fuzhou fu compiled in the Guangxu period showed that there were as many as tens of thousands of deaths.

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

277

From 1928 to 1953, the population of Fuzhou fu decreased from 1,269,000 to 1,077,000 inhabitants. As far as each county is concerned, Yihuang experienced the most significant population decrease, followed by Chongren, Le’an, and Jinxi. The population of Dongxiang increased rather than decreased, and the average annual growth rate of Dongxiang was 0.2‰, while that of Lingchuan was 3.9‰. If such population change is attributed to the Chinese Civil war, it remains unjustifiable why the population decreased rather than increased after the war from 1936 to 1953. However, during this period, the average annual population growth rates of Le’an and Dongxiang were 4.9‰ and 1.4‰, respectively. If Linchuan is factored in, then the average annual population growth rate of the three counties was 3.5‰. Accordingly, the population of Fuzhou fu was about 1,011,000 inhabitants in 1865, 1,192,000 inhabitants in 1910, and 1,628,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Fuzhou fu was about 1,628,000 inhabitants. During the Taiping War, 617,000 people died, meaning there was a loss rate of 37.9%. 5.11 Ji’an Fu Judging from the course of the Taiping War, Ji’an fu was the most severely affected region by the war. During the Chinese Civil War, Ji’an fu was also one of the main battlefields and suffered huge population losses. Therefore, the data of the Republic of China may reflect the population change during this period. However, the biggest problem with the 1936 population figures is that Yongfeng, Yongning, and Lianhua counties had higher population figures than in 1953 when the war in the three counties had already ended. Therefore, a continued population decrease seemed unreasonable. If these three counties are excluded, the average annual population growth rate of Ji’an would be 6.9‰. From 1931 to 1953, the people of counties, except Taihe and Jishui counties, decreased rather than increased, probably due to the war. The average annual population growth rate of Taihe and Jishui counties was 6‰. Based on this rate, the population growth rate of Ji’an fu from 1936 to 1953 was relatively high. The population of Yongning County was 95,000 inhabitants in 1931, and as many as 387,000 inhabitants in 1936; however, it was only 51,000 and 35,000 in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) and 1953, respectively. If we exclude the seemingly overestimated population of Yongning County in 1931, the population of Ji’an fu would be about 2.1 million inhabitants in that year. Going back by regression analysis based on the average annual growth rate of 6‰, the population of Ji’an fu was 1.415 million inhabitants in 1865 and about 1.852 million inhabitants in 1910.

278

Chapter 10

In 1821, the population of Ji’an fu was about 3.104 million inhabitants. Based on the average annual growth rate of 3.3‰, the population of Ji’an was 3.426 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). In the Taiping War, Ji’an fu lost 2,011,000 inhabitants, accounting for 58.7% of its pre-war population. 5.12 Ganzhou Fu, Nan’an Fu, and Ningdu Fu Vol. 33 of Ganzhou Fu Records compiled in the Tongzhi period details how different counties experienced the Taiping War. Compared with the data of 1953, the population data during the Republican period were not reliable. Let’s suppose that the average annual population growth rate of Ganzhou was 3‰ after the Taiping War up until 1953, then the population of Ganzhou fu was about 1,482,000 inhabitants in 1865 and 1,772,000 in 1910. In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), Ganzhou fu had a population of about 2,708,000 inhabitants and a population loss during the war of 1.159 million inhabitants, accounting for 42.8% of the pre-war population. By comparison, the population data of Ningzhou fu in 1936 are more reliable. If we exclude Shicheng, which had a decreasing population figure, then the average annual population growth rate of Ningdu Prefecture from 1936 to 1953 was about 3‰. This can be regarded as the general population growth rate of south Jiangxi in the non-war period. In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), the population of Ningdu was approximately 911,000 inhabitants; in 1965, it was 473,000. The population loss was 438,000 inhabitants, accounting for 48.1% of the pre-war population. In 1910, the population of Ningdu was about 542,000 inhabitants. Using the same methodology, we estimate the population of Nan’an fu to be approximately 784,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), 538,000 in 1965, and 615,000 in 1910. The population loss was 246,000 inhabitants during the war, accounting for 31.4% of the pre-war population. 5.13 Summary Before the Taiping War, the population of Jiangxi was about 24,811,000 inhabitants. During the war, about 12,280,000 inhabitants perished, representing a loss rate of approximately 50.5%. 6

Hubei

In December 1852, the Taiping army set off from Hunan to Wuchang, then took over Hankou, then in October 1853, the army started their westward expedition that led to the occupation of Qizhou and Huangzhou, the defeat (three

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

279

times) of Hanhou and Hanyang, and the taking over of Wuchang. The war was mainly launched in the southeastern area of Hubei and unfolded with a series of extremely brutal “seasaw” battles. In 1854, the army entered Hubei from Anhui and occupied Hankou, Hanyang, and Wuchang. In 1860, the army took a second westward expedition and occupied Huangzhou on March 4, 1861, but did not attack Wuhan. Meanwhile, Xiaogan, Yunmeng, De’an, and Suizhou were reduced to battlefields. Later, the division of the Taiping army led by Li Xiucheng entered from Jiangxi into the areas of southeastern Hubei, including Tongshan, Xianning, Daye, and Wuchang. Obviously, the southeastern areas of Hubei experienced more battles during the Taiping War, and its population loss was, comparatively, the largest. In the “Wubei” (Military Book), Vol. 74 of The General Records of Hubei compiled in the Republic of China; there are detailed accounts on the military training of Tuanlian (militia) and the Taiping War that we can rely on to analyze the impact of the war on the population of each fu. However, the estimation of the population loss in Hubei in this section is quite rough due to the lack of statistics. 6.1 Yuyang Fu In October 1862, the Taiping army of 300,000 soldiers attacked Yuanyang prefectural capital, but they failed seven days and had to retreat. In Zhuxi County, the Taiping army “affected the area within more than 100 li. Then they stationed in Zhuxi for 70 days and attacked other military fortresses.” As a result, more than ten military fortresses were broken through and “hundreds of thousands of men and women inside the fortresses died or were taken captive.” This record is somewhat exaggerated as the total population of more than ten fortresses could not reach hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. Another example is Yunxi County, where the Taiping army attacked the county town of Yunxi for ten days and occupied it, resulting in “tens of thousands of deaths.” Based on these sources, deaths in Yunyang fu were no more than 100,000 inhabitants. The population of Yunyang fu was 1,063,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) and 1,117,000 in 1861. Assuming that 100,000 inhabitants died during the war, I estimate that the population of Yunyang in 1863 was 1,017,000 inhabitants. Its population was 1,798,000 inhabitants in 1953, and its average annual population growth rate from 1865 to this time was 6.4‰. At this growth rate, the population in 1910 was estimated to be 1,367,000 inhabitants. 6.2 Xiangyang Fu When the city of Wuchang was broken through in 1852, the local rebel forces in Xiangyang rose up. They gathered other rebel troops, plundered around, and

280

Chapter 10

attacked Fancheng. The government and the gentry organized village militia to fight against the rebels. Civilians were organized to strengthen and guard the defenses for self-protection. Compared with Yunyang, the population loss of Xiangyang fu was a maximum of 300,000 inhabitants. 6.3 Jingmen Zhou and Anlu Fu It was said that “Jingmen suffered a great deal due to several wars since the Xianfeng period.” Tuanlian (Militia) training in Jingmen was organized since 1864. In 1864 and 1866, the invasion by the Nian army across Hanshui River was resisted by the militia. The number of deaths is insignificant and has been ignored in our calculation. The situation in Anlu fu was similar. 6.4 Jingzhou Prefecture The intensity of the war within Jingzhou Prefecture was far less than that of the eastern fu. The Taiping army did not have many troops and thus did not stay long, causing little impact upon Jingzhou. The population loss (if any) caused by the local unrest was probably no more than 200,000 people. 6.5 De’an Fu In March of 1854, the Taiping army attacked and occupied Yunmeng and Anlu. According to Vol. 8 of the Records of De’an fu compiled in the Guangxu period, the Taiping army “stayed [in Tunmeng and Anlu] for more than a month, and the neighboring areas fell into great trouble, too.” Later, the Taiping army captured Suizhou, Yingshan, and other fu and counties. Many battles happened between the official army, militia and the Taiping army, and the scales were not large. In August of 1863, “Lan Chengchun, illegitimate Duanwang King, and Ma Ronghe, illegitimate Heavenly General, gathered hundreds of thousands of bandits and fled from Suizhou and Zao to Yingshan, placing their flags everywhere. 100,000 people were captured or killed.” Gathering tens of thousands of people, the militia of Yingshan County set up defenses and fortresses for self-protection. In October of the same year, the Nian troops entered the county. In 1864, Chen Decai invested as fu Prince, led more than one million soldiers and entered Yingshan, but soon was resisted by the militia. The war in De’an fu was intermittent and lasted for a long time, but the scale was not large. The population loss of De’an fu during the wartime was only about 200,000 inhabitants. 6.6 Huangzhou Fu and Others Huangzhou fu in Hubei was the main battlefield of the Taiping army in its eastward expedition and two westward expeditions in which large-scale combats

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

281

were launched against the Qing troops. Without any available data, after comparing with other regions, let’s suppose that population deaths in Huangzhou fu may account for one quarter of its total population. The population of Huangzhou was 4,023,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and at the population loss rate of 25%, its population decreased by 905,000 inhabitants. After the war, the population of Huangzhou was 2,716,000 inhabitants and it was 4,227,000 in 1953. Its average annual population growth from 1865 until then was 5‰. It is unnecessary to repeat the description of the war in Hanyang fu and Wuchang fu. According to historical documents, the population loss of Hanyang fu might exceed that of Huangzhou fu and others, taking up one-third of the total population. If so, the population of Hanyang fu in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year) was 3.683 million inhabitants. Based on the annual average growth rate of 3.4‰, the population of Hanyang fu could reach 4.092 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and its population loss in the war was 1.364 million; its population was 2.728 million inhabitants after the war. In 1953, the population of Hanyang fu was 4.545 million inhabitants, and its average annual population growth rate since 1865 was 5.8‰. It should be noted that after the Taiping War, about hundreds of thousands of people from the eastern and central areas of Hubei moved to southern Jiangsu, southern Anhui, and western Zhejiang, among which, De’an fu and Huangzhou fu received the largest number of migrants. In the Taiping War, the population loss of De’an was not as big as that of Huangzhou. However, the population of Huangzhou and its absolute quantity of inhabitants were larger. It might be possible that many inhabitants of Huangzhou moved out to other places in the war. Many counties in southern Jiangsu, western Zhejiang, and southern Anhui were almost deserted after the Taiping war. Relatively speaking, De’an fu and Huangzhou fu in Hubei were still densely populated areas. The prewar and post-war population of other fu in Hubei Province, such as Wuchang fu, has been analyzed in Chapter Nine of this book. 6.7 Summary The impact of the Taiping War upon the population of each fu in Hubei Province mainly influenced the southeast area of Hubei, while other areas were less affected by the war. Take Yunyang fu as an example. Compared with the population in 1865, the population in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) did not decrease but increased instead. However, it is still an indisputable fact that the war in 1861 caused the loss of local population. According to my estimation in this section, about 5 million inhabitants in Hubei died during the Taiping War, accounting for 22.5% of the total pre-war

282

Chapter 10

population and 26.2% of the pre-war population in the war zones. However, such an estimate is fairly rough. More effective methods are desirable to improve the accuracy of these data. The population data of 1910 are estimated according to the average annual population growth from the postwar years up until 1953, and thus more reliable than the data from the New Deal surveys. The populations of Wuchang fu, De’an fu, Anlu fu, Jingmen Prefecture, and Xiangyang fu obtained from the surveys were larger and even much larger than that of 1953. However, the 1910 revised data of Jingzhou fu and Yunyang fu was the same as those from the New Deal surveys. This suggests that some officials in the government was quite responsible in imeplemeting the government’s policy and conducted rigorous New Deal investigations. Unfortunately, such cases were not the majorities in Hubei. 7

Hunan

Hengzhou Fu 7.1 In 1859, Shi Dakai led his troops and broke into southern Hunan, thus igniting wars. During the battle in the tenth lunar month, ten thousand soldiers of the Taiping army were defeated, an outcome which well displayed the strength of the local militia. The population of Lingxian County was nearly 110,000 inhabitants in 1816, and its average annual population growth rate was 5.4‰ between 1795 and 1816. Based on the average annual growth rate of 5‰, the population of Lingxian could be about 130,000 in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). According to Vol. 11 of The Records of Lingxian County compiled in the Tongzhi period, after the Baojia Menpai registration system was carried out in 1871, the population of the whole Lingxian county was only 117,000 inhabitants, and its population loss was about 13,000 inhabitants in the war, accounting for 10% of the total pre-war population. According to Vol. 3 of The Records of Hengyang County compiled in the Tongzhi period, the population of Hengyang County was 438,000 inhabitants in 1871. According to Vol. 4 of The Records of Qingquan compiled during the same period, the population of Qingquan County was 472,000 inhabitants in 1864. Thus, the total population of both counties was 930,000 in 1864 while it was 843,000 in 1816; their average annual population growth rate from 1816 to 1871 was 1.6‰, similar to that of Lingxian county. Since no record of a major war in the two counties was found, I ascribe the stagnant population growth from this period to the time of turmoil. A large number of young men were

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

283

recruited and joined the Xiang (Hunan) Army to fight against the Taiping army. Among them, deaths of Tuanlian members and recruited militiamen were much higher, which may be one of the major reasons for the stagnant growth of the local population. From the Qianlong period to the Jiaqing period, the average annual population growth rate of Hengzhou fu was about 6‰. Accordingly, the population of Hengyang fu in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) was about 2.754 million inhabitants. From 1910 to 1953, its average annual population growth rate was 4.3‰. If so, the population of Hengzhou fu in 1865 was about 2.225 million inhabitants. Its population loss in the war was 529,000 inhabitants, accounting for 23.8% of the pre-war population. In the cases of Lingxian and Hengyang, not many people died in local wars while a large number of people moved to other regions and died in the battlefields of the Taiping army along the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River. 7.2 Chenzhou In Vol. 4 of Guidong County Records compiled in the Tongzhi period, we can find the record on the population of the Qing Dynasty in different years. From 1795 to 1815, the average annual population growth rate of Chenzhou was 4.1‰. The population of Guidong County was 100,241 inhabitants in 1860, and 100,644 inhabitants plus 36 households of Yao people in 1866. The compilation of registers in 1860 was conducted for the organization of Tuanlian to fight against the Taiping army. The data from the compiled registers are reliable. However, it is unreasonable if the data in 1866 are almost the same as that in 1860. According to Vol. 7 of The Records of Guidong County compiled in the 5th year of Tongzhi (1866), “bandits were active in different areas” after 1852 so the local government organized Tuanlian (militia) to “support Xingning, Lingxian, and Chenzhou which later experienced dozens of battles.” Many Tuanlian members and village militiamen were sent to the battlefields, which led to large-scale deaths. According to Vol. 1 of The Local Records of Chenzhou Zhilizhou compiled in the Guangxu period, troops led by Shi Daikai invaded Chenzhou from west Jiangxi, and “the slaughter by them was the most relentless. Inhabitants who were taken away as captives seldom survived. Villages were burned down, and almost nine out of ten houses were empty.” According to Vol. 7 of The Records of Yizhang County compiled in Republican China, “The county town was occupied, and brutal killings followed.” Deaths were quite huge. Another example is Guiyang County. According to Vol. 11 of The Records of Guiyang County compiled in the Tongzhi period, in 1859, troops led by Shi

284

Chapter 10

Dakai “robbed, killed, raped and plundered where they arrived. Hundreds of people were killed and tens of thousands were looted.” The population loss was approximately 20,000 inhabitants. From 1910 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Chenzhou was 3.7‰. Based on this standard, the population of Chenzhou fu was about 840,000 inhabitants in 1865. At the same rate and based on the population of 1816, the population of Chenzhou was 1.088 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and its population loss in the Taiping War was about 237,000 inhabitants, a loss rate of 21.8%. 7.3 Guiyang Prefecture In 1852, 1855, and 1859, the battles between the Taiping army and the Qing troops scaled up. However, casualty recorded in the literature was not very high. From 1910 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Guiyang Prefecture was 1.8‰, which was rather low but still reasonable. Based on an annual average growth rate of 2‰, the population of Guiyang Prefecture was about 843,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and 676,000 in 1865. The population loss in the war was about 170,000 inhabitants, accounting for 20.2% of the total population before the war, which was similar to but slightly lower than the population loss in Chenzhou. 7.4 Yongzhou Fu The Taiping army entered Yongzhou from Quanzhou in 1852, and started small-scale battles which scarcely affected Yongzhou. In 1859, troops led by Shi Dakai began to attack Yongzhou fucheng (prefectural capital), and the battles were fierce. The Taiping troops were defeated and records said that thousands of Taiping soldiers were killed. According to Vol. 2 of The Records of Dong’an County compiled in the Guangxu period, after breaking into the city of Dong’an in 1859, the Taiping army “slaughtered more than a thousand men and women in the city,” a historical record of the most severe and brutal slaughter. In 1816, the population of Dong’an County was 230,000 inhabitants, and it was 273,000 in 1953. Its average annual population growth rate was 1.3‰. This suggests an obvious population loss in Dong’an County. If the population growth rate of Dong’an is the same as that of the whole fu, say 4.5‰, its population would be about 290,000 inhabitants in 1868. According to Vol. 3 of The Records of Dong’an County compiled in the Guangxu period, the population of Dong’an County was 264,000 inhabitants in 1874, and its population loss was at least 26,000 inhabitants. However, as far as the whole fu is concerned, the impact of the Taiping War can be ignored.

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

285

7.5 Baoqing Fu In 1860, about a hundred thousand soldiers of the Taiping troops led by Shi Dakai entered Baoqing fu and were later defeated by the official forces. In the first lunar month of 1861, troops led by Shi Daka entered Baoqing fu again from Jiangxi and besieged Baoqing prefectural capital for three months. They were in turn “attacked, assaulted and killed by civilians and the village gentry.” Bloody as the battles were, their impact on the two counties was still partial. The population of Chengbu County in 1933 was excluded in our estimation because it greatly exceeded that of 1953. The annual average population growth rate of Baoqing fu from 1933 to 1953 was about 9‰. Calculated at this rate, the population of Baoqing was 2.02 million inhabitants in 1865. According to Chapter Four of this book, based on the annual average growth rate of 6‰, the population of Baoqing fu in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) was about 2.184 million inhabitants, and its population loss was 182,000 during the wartime. If the prewar date were set in 1869, deaths would have been much higher. In the middle of the 20th century and before 1953, four counties were set up in Baoqing fu because of their rapid population growth. However, the population data of Baoqing fu obtained from the New Deal surveys were the same as those in 1816, and thus seemed inaccurate. Based on the average annual growth rate of 9‰, the actual population of Baoqing in 1910 was 2.997 million inhabitants. 7.6 Jingzhou Prefecture Between 1860 and 1861, the Taiping army entered Jingzhou Prefecture and moved to other areas after a short stay there. According to Jingzhou Zhilizhou Records compiled in the Guangxu period, the population of Jingzhou was 74,000 inhabitants in 1862. It also said that “since the Xianfeng period, the prefecture experiences wars which led to deaths accounting for half of its population.” The record was not accurate because the number of registered households in 1836 had decreased compared to the previous years. According to Household Population: The Records of Huitong County compiled in the Guangxu period (1818), the number of registered Yanmin (opium addicts) was 100,048 inhabitants. In 1880 (Guangxu 6th year), it was 109,987 inhabitants, and its average annual population growth rate was 1.5‰. It also said in the book that “during the Xianfeng and Tongzhi periods, affected by revolts and disruptions by Miao people from Guizhou, the county town [of Huitong] was occupied twice. It was hard for people to recover their normal life after the warfare.” This indicates a population decrease during the Xianfeng and Tongzhi periods.

286

Chapter 10

The average annual growth rate of population of Jingzhou Prefecture was 5.8‰ from 1933 to 1953, and it was 0.8‰ from 1910 to 1953. If so, the 1910 figure is probably closer to the actual population. Based on the pre-war average annual population growth rate, the population of Jingzhou was 560,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and it was about 500,000 in 1865 if we make a regression analysis going back from the population growth rate in 1910. The Taiping War and subsequent social turbulence resulted in the deaths of about 60,000 inhabitants. 7.7 The Four Ting of West Hunan From 1816 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of the four Ting in west Hunan was 6.1‰. This means that the four Ting were not affected by the Taiping War. As a matter of fact, until November of 1861, more than 100,000 Taiping soldiers led by Shi Dakai entered west Hunan but did not stay there for more than a few days and then left. In 1863, the remaining tens of thousands of Taiping solders invaded west Human from Sichuan, and went to Guangxi after they were defeated. Therefore, no major wars happened in Hunan. 7.8 Yongshun Fu If we exclude Sangzhi County, which had an inflated population, the average annual population growth rate of Yongshun fu was 3.5‰ from 1933 to 1953, and 2.3‰ from 1910 to 1933. Based on this average annual growth rate and the regression analysis, the population of Yongshun was estimated to be about 650,000 inhabitants in 1865. It remained almost the same during the Jiaqing period. If we use the average annual growth rate of 3‰ as a standard, the population of Yongshun fu was 783,000 inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and its population loss was 133,000 inhabitants. 7.9 Yuanzhou Fu and Chenzhou Fu At the end of the Xianfeng period, Shi Dakai’s troops stirred up west Hunan. However, they did not stay there longer and the small-scale wars resulted in fewer deaths. Therefore, the population growth from 1811 to 1953 can be considered a natural population increase. The average annual population growth rates of Yuanzhou fu and Chenzhou fu from 1811 to 1953 were 1.4‰ and 3.1‰ respectively, and they were was 2.2‰ and 2.3‰ respectively from 1910 to 1953. 7.10 Changsha Fu The siege of the Changsha city by the Taiping army in 1852 lasted for more than 80 days. At the time, the Taiping army was so well disciplined as not to disturb

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population

287

the local people, and the population loss was low. In the local records, few massacres were mentioned. The population loss during the war was not large, too. From 1861 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Changsha fu was 6‰, and it was 4.8‰ from 1933 to 1953. If we exclude Liuyang County and Chaling County whose population exceeded that of 1953, Changsha fu’s average annual population growth rate from 1933 to 1953 was about 7‰, a quite rapid growth. From the end of the Qing Dynasty to 1953, five counties, such as Zhuzhou were separated from Changsha fu because their population grew quite rapidly that new counties had to be set up. 7.11 Changde Fu and Lizhou Prefecture The war in 1865 had little impact on Changde fu and Lizhou Prefecture. The average annual population growth rate of Lizhou from 1816 to 1953 was 6.5‰. From 1933 to 1953, the sharp decrease in the population of Dayong County may be related to the Chinese Civil War, while the reasons for the decrease of the population of Linli and Nan counties are unknown yet. If we exclude Lin and Nan counties, the average annual population growth rate of Lizhou from 1933 to 1953 was 6.8‰, which is consistent with its population growth rate in 1816. Accordingly, the population of Lizhou in 1910 was about 1,961,000 inhabitants. The average annual population growth rate of Changde fu was 4.5‰ from 1816 to 1953, and 5.9‰ from 1933 to 1953. Based on the average annual growth rate of 5‰, the actual population in 1910 was estimated to be about 1.798 million inhabitants. 7.12 Yuezhou Fu In the Taiping War, Yuezhou fu went through the most brutal battle among all. In 1852, the Taiping army withdrew from Yuezhou City after being defeated by the Qing troops, which restored their control of the city. In 1853, the Taiping army attacked and occupied the city twice. The Taiping War led to the decrease of the population of Baling and Linxiang counties in 1953 in comparison with that in 1816. If we exclude Baling and Linxiang counties, the average annual population growth rate of other counties in Yuezhou fu would be 3.6‰ from 1816 to 1953. This rate is relatively lower than that of Changsha, which indicates that they were also hit by the war but to a lesser degree. From 1910 to 1953, the average annual population growth rate of Yuezhou fu was 2.6‰. Up until 1933, the population decreased rather than increased. The average annual population growth rate from 1933 to 1953 was 8.2‰. The population data of 1910 seem to be inflated. If I use the average annual growth rate of 6‰ and go back from 1953 with a regression analysis, the population of

288

Chapter 10

Yuezhou fu would be 1.479 million inhabitants in 1910 and 1.13 million in 1865. It is known that the population of Yuezhou fu was 1.953 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and 823,000 people died during the war, accounting for 42.2‰ of its pre-war population. The population loss rate of Yuezhou fu is close to that of Wuchang fu in Hubei Province. 7.13 Summary In Hengzhou fu, Baoqing fu, Yuezhou fu, Chenzhou fu, Yongshun fu of Guiyang Prefecture, and Jingzhou which experienced the war and suffered serious population deaths, their pre-war population totaled about 10.165 million inhabitants while their post-war population was about 8.023 million inhabitants; their population loss was 2.142 million inhabitants, accounting for 21.1% of the pre-war population. 8

Summary

About the Taiping War 8.1 The impact of the Taiping War on the population in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Fujian, Jiangxi, Hubei, and Hunan provinces can be seen from Table 13 below. Table 13 reveals the population change of each province and fu involved in the war. In total, the pre-war population of the 64 fu-level administrative regions of the seven provinces was 155.81 million inhabitants, and their post-war population was 80.04 million. During the war, the population loss was 74.909 million inhabitants, a loss rate of 48.1%. As far as individual fu is concerned, deaths in Jiangning fu, Zhenjiang fu, and Changzhou fu in Jiangsu Province were more than 70% of their respective population. Among all fu of Jiangnan in Anhui, deaths mainly happened in the city of Nanjing. In Zhejiang, deaths in Hangzhou outnumbered those in Huzhou. Usually, battles driven by the goal of occupying central cities were the most intense and fierce ones, which caused overwhelming deaths. The fu-level administrative regions whose deaths were between 50% and 70% of their respective total population included Suzhou fu in Jiangsu, Jiaxing fu, Shaoxing fu, and Yanzhou fu in Zhejiang, Anqing fu and Chuzhou in Anhui. Some of these regions were located near the provincial capitals of Nanjing and Hangzhou, and others were the seat of the province-level capitals or Buzhengsi—such as Anqing prefectural capital and Suzhou prefectural capital. Death rates were also very high in other fu such as Nanchang, Nankang, Jiujiang, Ruizhou, Linjiang, Ji’an and Jianchang in Jiangxi Province, and Shaowu, Jianning and Zhangzhou in fujian Province.

289

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population Table 13

The influence of the Taiping War on the population of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and other seven provinces. Population counting unit: ten thousand people

Area Jiangsu iangning fu Yangzhou fu Suzhou fu Songjiang fu Zhenjiang fu Changzhou fu Taicang fu Total Zhejiang Hangzhou fu Jiaxing fu Huzhou fu Yanzhou fu Shaoxing fu Ningbo fu Chuzhou fu Quzhou fu Jinhua fu Taizhou fu Total Anhui Guangde fu Ningguo fu Chizhou fu Taiping fu Huizhou fu Anqing fu Luzhou fu Fengyang fu Sizhou zhou Chuzhou zhou Liu’an zhou Total

1851

1865

Net population loss

Net reduction rate

622.5 798.1 654.3 291.5 248.4 440.9 197.1 3252.8

149.4 616.0 229.0 263.0 52.2 119.6 144.7 1573.9

473.1 182.1 425.3 28.5 196.2 321.3 52.4 1678.9

0.760 0.228 0.650 0.098 0.790 0.729 0.266 0.516

372.1 317.8 298.9 101.9 654.4 274.2 129.8 122.5 308.2 310.8 2890.6

72.0 109.1 63.2 46.5 256.8 174.0 86.3 61.0 185.0 202.6 1256.5

300.1 208.7 235.7 55.4 397.6 100.2 43.5 61.5 123.2 108.2 1634.1

0.807 0.657 0.789 0.544 0.608 0.365 0.335 0.502 0.400 0.348 0.565

64.3 400.0 322.0 173.0 271.5 640.0 416.5 511.3 184.2 70.4 168.2 3221.4

4.2 76.8 42.0 43.0 70.5 280.0 340.0 344.4 114.6 24.6 103.1 1443.2

60.1 323.2 280.0 130.0 201.0 360.0 76.5 166.9 69.6 45.8 65.1 1778.2

0.935 0.808 0.870 0.751 0.740 0.563 0.184 0.326 0.378 0.651 0.387 0.552

290 Table 13

Chapter 10 The influence of the Taiping War on the population (cont.)

Area fujian Jianning fu Shaowu fu Tingzhou fu Yanping fu Longyan zhou Zhangzhou fu Total Jiangxi Nanchang fu Nankang fu Jiujiang fu Ruizhou fu Raozhou fu Guangxin fu Yuanzhou fu Linjiang fu Ji’an fu Jianchang fu fuzhou fu Nan’an fu Ningdu zhou Ganzhou fu Total Hubei Hanyang fu Huangzhou fu Wuchang fu De’an fu Jingzhou fu Xiangyang fu Yunyang fu Total Hunan Quzhou fu Baoqing fu Yuezhou fu

1851

1865

Net population loss

Net reduction rate

130.4 66.3 167.4 90.6 37.0 383.0 874.7

64.8 22.8 101.6 54.9 22.2 159.6 425.9

65.6 43.5 65.8 35.7 14.8 223.4 448.8

0.503 0.656 0.393 0.394 0.400 0.583 0.513

423.3 110.0 150.8 113.4 206.4 174.6 81.6 132.6 342.6 142.7 162.8 78.4 91.1 270.8 2481.1

187.1 47.7 50.1 37.8 123.8 118.1 65.3 52.4 141.5 47.1 101.1 53.8 47.3 154.9 1228.0

236.2 62.3 100.7 75.6 82.6 56.5 16.3 80.2 201.1 95.6 61.7 24.6 43.8 115.9 1253.1

0.558 0.566 0.668 0.667 0.400 0.324 0.200 0.605 0.587 0.670 0.379 0.314 0.481 0.428 0.505

409.8 416.8 344.5 151.6 220.0 195.2 106.3 1844.2

272.8 271.6 206.7 131.6 200.8 165.2 111.9 1360.6

137.0 145.2 137.8 20.0 19.2 30.0 −5.6 483.6

0.334 0.348 0.400 0.132 0.087 0.154 −0.053 0.262

275.4 218.4 195.3

222.5 200.2 113.0

52.9 18.2 82.3

0.192 0.083 0.421

291

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population Table 13

The influence of the Taiping War on the population (cont.)

Area

1851

Chenzhou zhou Guiyang zhou Yongshun fu Jingzhou zhou Total

108.8 84.3 78.3 56.0 1016.5

1865 84.0 67.6 65.0 50.0 802.3

Net population loss 24.8 16.7 13.3 6.0 214.2

Net reduction rate 0.228 0.198 0.170 0.107 0.211

8.2 About the National Population Loss While the Taiping army was fighting with the Qing troops in the area around the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, Du Wenxiu, leader of the Hui people in Yunnan, rose in rebellion against the Qing Dynasty in 1856 and the southwest frontier was involved in a 16-year war. In February of 1862, the Taiping army joined with the Nian Army and their 200,000-soldier forces entered Shaanxi Province from Henan Province. In mid-April, combats happened between the Hui and Han peoples in Weinan due to their conflicts in cutting bamboo forests. The Han militia took the chance to slaughter the Hui people who also fought back. This led to the Northwest Hui-people Revolt. From 1876 to 1880 (Guangxu 6th year), disasters spread across five northern provinces—Shanxi, Henan, Shaanxi, Hebei, and Shangdong—and further affected the northern part of some provinces such as Jiangsu and Anhui. The most severe disasters happened between the Dingchou lunar year of Guangxu (1877) and the Wuyin lunar year of Guangxu (1878), and people referred to them as the “Ding Wu Catastrophe.” Shanxi Province (abbreviated as “Jin”) and Henan Province (abbreviated as “Yu”) were hit most heavily by the disasters and people also referred to the disasters as the “Catastrophe in Jin and Yu.” Shanxi province suffered the biggest population loss and the influence of the disasters on Shanxi was ubiquitous. Records on the severity of the disasters were not rare in the records of the prefectures and counties which had experienced the disasters. In the 30 years from 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) to 1880 (Guangxu 6th year), twelve provinces and regions in China were plunged into war and famine. Due to the reason of space, it may not be possible to elaborate in the book on the impact of the Northwest Hui-people Revolt and the “Ding Wu Catastrophe” on the population of different regions. The following is a general analysis of the impact of the 30-year war and famine on the population of each fu in different provinces and clarify what they brought to the whole China in the 19th century.

Map 9

The population loss during the second half of the 19th century

Map 10

The population loss rate of the second half of the 19th century

294

Chapter 10

The population loss and the loss rate of each fu in different provinces are shown on maps 9 and 10. As far as individual fu is concerned, in the second half of the 19th century, areas along the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River experienced the greatest population loss, followed by North China and northwest China, and then by Yunnan. Based on the population loss rate, we can see more clearly from the map that a zone with high population loss extended with an angle of 45 degrees from the northwest to Jiangnan. This image tells us clearly that in the second half of the 19th century, wars and natural disasters reduced the northwest to a destitute area and Jiangnan a less developed area. 8.3 Province as a Counting Unit During the 29 years from 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) to 1880 (Guangxu 6th year), each area experienced wars, plagues, and droughts at different points of time and with different durations. Therefore, it is hard to fix a standard point of time setting apart the pre-disaster and post-disaster periods. Roughly speaking, the total number of people who died from wars, plagues and droughts during this period was 116.1 million, accounting for 47.2% of the pre-disaster population of the area. It should be noted that this figure does not include the number of deaths in Zhili and Shandong provinces because we did not obtain the number of deaths of each fu of these two provinces. If we only compare the population data in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) and those in 1880 (Guangxu 6th year), China’s population was 437.323 million inhabitants in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and was 364.339 million in 1880 (Guangxu 6th year), a net decrease of 72.984 million inhabitants accounting for 16.7% of China’s total population in 1850. The net population loss over the 30 years was still less than the number of deaths from wars, plagues, and catastrophes. Up till now, we can summarize the changes of China’s population as well as of provincial population from 1680 to 1953. For more details, please see Table 14. In 1680, the population in the territory of present-day People’s Republic of China was approximately 184,993,000 inhabitants. Compared with 219,478,000 inhabitants in 1630 shown in Table 9, it decreased by 34,485,000 inhabitants accounting for 15.7% of the population in 1630. From 1680 to 1776, China’s population grew to 311,645,000 inhabitants and the average annual population growth rate was 5.4‰ from 1680 till this time. Up until 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), China’s population grew to 383,287,000 inhabitants and the average annual growth rate was 4.7‰ from 1776 till this time. In 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), China’s population reached 437,323,000 inhabitants and the average annual growth rate was 4.3‰ up until 1820 (Jiaqing 25th

295

The Impact of the Taiping War on the Population Table 14

Province

China’s population change from 1680 to 1953. Population counting unit: 1,000 people

1680

1776

1820

1851

1880

1910

1953

Jiangsu 21313 31790 39207 44593 29496 32355 47497 Anhui 14872 25766 32057 37386 21392 25197 30588 Zhejiang 15702 22306 27335 31139 16029 18490 22825 Jiangxi 12159 18820 22350 24811 13316 14961 16614 Hunan 8850 15055 18752 21812 22512 26320 33226 Hubei 9804 16173 19482 22187 18966 22077 27453 fujian 8216 13779 16545 18407 14167 15471 20735 Guangdong 13344 18445 21405 23859 26447 29461 34470 Guangxi 4921 7662 9461 10962 12592 14535 17884 Yunnan 4713 7949 10360 12675 11645 13468 17628 Guizhou 3865 5670 7476 8794 10254 12047 15237 Sichuan 1368 16504 23388 29387 36461 45633 65108 Zhili 11719 19841 24041 27055 31587 37328 48136 Henan 13718 23225 27642 30771 26218 31087 43240 Shandong 19658 27902 32326 35585 38978 43881 49266 Shanxi 8091 12278 14339 15838 8827 11867 16214 Shaanxi 1772 7946 12139 13269 7020 9545 15834 Gansu 8728 15799 17605 19039 4955 7161 14110 Xinjiang 208 448 1105 1363 1392 2169 4774 Liaoning 300 610 1757 2582 4090 10696 18545 Jilin 40 294 567 1238 2569 5477 11290 Heilongjiang 40 108 168 370 775 1981 11897 Qinghai 254 280 300 314 329 344 1677 Tibet 1036 1140 1190 1231 1270 1312 1374 Inner Mongolia 300 1855 2290 2656 3052 3497 6100 Total 184993 311645 383287 437323 364339 436360 591722 Data source: Appendix 6

year). It was in 1820 that the Qing Dynasty had its largest population. After nearly 30 years of wars, plagues and droughts, China’s population in 1880 (Guangxu 6th year) was only 364,339,000 inhabitants, a decrease of 72,984,000 inhabitants accounting for 16.7% of the population in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year). In terms of population mortality rate, the population loss between 1630 and

296

Chapter 10

1680 was bigger than that between 1851 and 1880 (Guangxu 6th year). In terms of the number of deaths, the population loss between 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year) and 1880 (Guangxu 6th year) exceeded that between 1630 and 1680. The population in 1910 was close to that in 1851 (Xianfeng 1st year), and reached 436.36 million inhabitants. In 1949, the population was 541.67 million inhabitants, and the average annual population growth rate from 1910 to 1949 was 5.6‰, similar to that of the early Qing Dynasty. In 1953, the population was 591.722 million inhabitants; the average annual growth rate from 1949 to 1953 was 22.3‰. In short, even in the midst of industrialization, urbanization and modernization during the Republic of China, the population still maintained a low growth rate of the traditional era. It is after 1949 that China’s population began to feature a high growth rate which is described as the “population explosion”.

Chapter 11

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period 1

Concepts and Methods

Due to the inadequacy of data, it is impossible to comprehensively discuss the urban population in the Hongwu period in this chapter; rather, it is feasible to estimate the urban population of some provinces and regions, and then to estimate the total urban population in the Hongwu period accordingly. Cities discussed in this chapter refer to non-military areas of relatively large non-agricultural populations that, in the Ming Dynasty, included the political, industrial and commercial, and military populations. The political population includes administrative personnel, members of the royal family, and various service personnel in government departments. The industrial and commercial population included all professional artisans and merchants, while the military population mainly referred to soldiers of the Garrison. It should be noted that all categories of the population included their dependents. Administrative centers at all levels in China, including the national capital, provincial capitals, prefectural capitals and county centers were not only the political centers but also local economic centers. Given their large political and industrial populations, they are all classified under the category cities. Some counties in remote areas that served as regional political and economic centers are also taken into consideration even though they were not densely populated. In addition to the administrative centers, the larger commercial towns are also discussed in this chapter. Here, we do not stick to William Skinner’s (1995)1 criterion of a population of more than 2,000 because in modern China, a total population of over 2,000 inhabitants in a “central place” out of a country of 400 million people may serve as a basic criterion for cities or not, while in the Ming Dynasty with a total population of only 70 million to 220 million, the standard for defining the urban population was reasonably lower, or even lower than that. In general, a population of 1,000 inhabitants was equal to that of 200 households, which was the size of a shi (city) in Jiangnan in the Ming Dynasty. However, in the literature, we found that there were no liesi or fixed stores and professional merchants in most “shi” in the Ming Dynasty. The market was 1 Skinner, G. (1995). Regional Urbanization in Nineteenth-Century China. The City in Late Imperial China. Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_012

298

Chapter 11

more of “a morning gathering that is dismissed at noon.” In those “shi,” the main occupations of residents were not commerce-related, so traders would probably have been non-local merchants or peasants from neighboring places. Therefore, this type of “shi” are not viewed as cities. The population of some shi was large enough to reach the scale of zhen (towns). In general, a zhen had more population than a shi (city), while in some regions, a zhen had a population as small as a city. Those sparsely populated zhen are also not viewed as cities. Soldiers also belonged to the non-agricultural population in the Ming Dynasty; however, barracks were apparently not defined as cities. In the Ming Dynasty, a garrison was just one settlement for the non-agricultural population—not the industrial and commercial population. It was until the mid and late Ming Dynasty, when commerce flourished, that a military garrison became more of an industrial and commercial city. That is why we list garrisons separately in our discussion of the urban population in the early Ming Dynasty. This chapter is divided into three parts: the national and provincial capitals, prefectural and county capitals, and industrial and commercial cities and towns. Some county capitals were governed as prefectural capitals, so they are treated as prefectural capitals in this chapter. Likewise, some county or prefectural capitals were governed as the national capital, so they were treated as the national capital accordingly. The capital of the Ming Dynasty was first Nanjing and then Beijing after 1421 (Yongle 19th year). Nanjing was also the prefectural capital of Yingtian fu and the county capital of Jiangjing county, and Shangyuan county, while Beijing was equally the capital of Beiping Prefecture (the capital of Shuntian Prefecture after the relocation of the capital during the reign of Yongle Emperor), Daxingcounty, and Wanping county. However, it should be noted that the discussion in this chapter is not based on the year 1421 (Yongle 19th year). This chapter estimates the urban and rural population based on the data of “li.” However, at different places, li had different appellations, including xiang (rural area), she, fang (urban area), guan (urban area) and xiang (suburban that are part of the city). 2

National Capital

2.1 Nanjing In summary, from a population and an occupational structure perspective, there were 23,463 civilian and military households and approximately

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period

299

100,000 inhabitants in Nanjing City in 1371 (Hongwu 4th year). By 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), there were about one million inhabitants in the city and the suburbs including some garrison soldiers and their families that lived elsewhere. That means the urban registered population would probably have been between 700,000 and 800,000. However, the number of inhabitants would have been between 900,000 and 1 million if the floating population, including students of Guozijian (the Imperial College), shift artisans, and merchants are included. The capital was relocated to the north in 1421 (Yongle 19th year), except some yamen of the government, about 135,000 native civilians, artisans, and soldiers from 35 wei and 1 suo were relocated northward. At least 600,000 to 700,000 people moved out of the city and a considerable number of soldiers did not live in the city, that is why Nnajing’s population “more than halved.”2 Because of the relocation of soldiers and artisans, Nanjing lost its status as the political center and thus far fewer shift artisans and non-local merchants worked there. As a result, Nanjing only had an urban registered population between 200,000 and 300,000. During the community reorganization in 1437 (Zhengtong 2nd year), there were only 44 fang (urban area) and 35 xiang (suburban) in Shangyuan county and Jiangning county, respectively, totaling 79. This number was down by three-fourths when compared to the 319 fang and xiang in the Hongwu era. However, in the Hongwu era, fang xiang (urban) in Nanjing City were not compiled from a fixed number of households, making it difficult to estimate the population simply based on the number of fang xiang. In addition, a significant part of the population de-registered themselves to dodge military service after the mid-Ming Dynasty, making the estimation even more impossible. After the relocation of soldiers, apart from the immediate relatives that were relocated with soldiers, a significant number of family members were left behind Which amounted to 40,000 by October, 1451 (Jingtai 2nd year) and 100,000 together with their relatives. According to Volume 209 of Ming Yingzong Shilu (Veritable Records of Emperor Yingzong of Ming), in October of 1451 (Jingtai 2nd year), the government ordered: “For a household of one to five people, they shall move entirely; for a household of over 10 people that has an established industry, half shall move and half stay and operate; for a family of 20 to 30 people, half shall move and half stay, but if most of the household are unwilling to stay, they shall be subjected to further orders,” most of whom would be relocated to the former military station in Beijing or Shuntian. Therefore, the urban population of Nanjing further decreased. 2 Gu, Q. (1987). The full story of xiang and fang, Kezuo zhuiyu (The Story of JingLing). (Vol. 2). (p. 182). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. 64.

300

Chapter 11

According to Chen Zhongping’s (1998), Nanjing City probably developed after the Zhengde era (1506–1521).3 By evolving from a declining political center to a flourishing commercial and industrial metropolis due to growth in industry and commerce and an influx of people. Judging from its prosperity in the late Ming Dynasty, it is possible its urban population reached half a million. 2.2 Zhongdu4 Between 1369 (Hongwu 2nd year) to 1375 (Hongwu 8th year), Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang commanded the construction of the capital city in Linhao fu, which was on the northern slope of a small mountain that was 20 li west of the future Fengyang fu. The imposing capital was built with a circumference of over 54 li, and it was equipped with 9 gates. It was exquisitely designed, the quintessence of the toils of over one million soldiers and civilians. In 1375 (Hongwu 8th year), construction was suspended and the administrative center of Fengyang fu was relocated here while Linhao became Linhuai county. As indicated in Table 5, Zhongdu became the capital of Fengyang fu, but it only had a small civilian population of 4,000 because it had very few li. However, in terms of population, it could still be considered a large city, given that many soldiers were stationed there. 3

Provincial Capitals

3.1 Materials and Methodology Regarding current materials, our discussion shall be limited to the following provincial capitals in the Ming Dynasty: Beiping, Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangxi, and Huguang, or Fuzhou, Nanchang, and Jiangxia (Wuchang). This section uses, as the basic materials for analysis, the number of urban fang and xiang and rural li and tu that appeared in local records in the mid and late Ming Dynasty. Fang refers to the urban area, while xiang refers to the suburban area. In a city with a wall, fang refers to the neighborhoods within the wall, while xiang mainly refers to the neighborhoods outside the city wall or the outskirts. From either perspective, xiang is part of the city. However, literatures of urban xiang and fang and rural li and tu in the Hongwu period are unavailable, while the number of fang and li in the mid and late Ming Dynasty is deemed not representative enough of the demographics. Hence, we assume 3 Chen, Z. (1988). Development and Evolvement of Nanjing City in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. The Journal of Chinese Social and Economic History. (Vol. 1), 39–45. 4 Wang, J. (1991). Ming zhong du. Palace Museum Journal, 61–69.

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period

301

that urban fang and rural li increased or merged proportionately from the early to the mid and late Ming Dynasty and that this proportion largely reflects the proportion of the urban population to the rural population in the Hongwu era. As detailed below, this assumption is proved by “Huguang Tujing Zhishu” in the Jiajing period as is detailed below. As for a fuguo county whose population was unavailable in the literature, the proportion of li is used for estimation. That means the li proportion of a fuguo county to the total li of a region tantamounts to the proportion of its population to the total population. This way, it is possible to determine the population of a fuguo county. There is no need to use this method to estimate the population of a county capital because the population of a prefectural capital is estimated separately while the population of zhou or a county capital is an estimated aggregate. The garrison military population needs to be accounted for in the estimation of the urban population in the Hongwu period. A scale is used, as previously, to calculate the military population: there were 1,120 soldiers in every qianhusuo and every 5 suo governed by one wei, meaning the total population was 5,600. Assuming that every soldier had two dependents, then there were 16,500 inhabitants for each wei. The population varied accordingly if a wei governed more or less than five suo. In the “urban military population” blank below, most results appear as one-third of the military population. That is because in the mid Ming government, an order was issued requesting that “every three soldiers out of ten guard the city and the other seven engage in farming.” Though, eventually, how many soldiers guarded or farmed varied with the fertility and the importance of the land. Therefore, the ratio that represents the most common situation is used. 3.2 Beiping According to Gao Shouxian (2014), Beiping capital had a military population of about 128,000 and a total population of 169,000, including civilians. According to my latest research, Beijing had a civilian population of about 25,000 and a total population of 153,000 including soldiers. The differences of the two results are minimal enough to be neglected. After the capital was relocated to Beijing in the Yongle period, the urban population of Beijing grew rapidly to about 700,000 in 1425 (Hongxi 1st year), which increased to 900,000 in 1480 (Chenghua 16th year), 1 million in 1621 (Tianqi 1st year), and 1580 (Wanli 8th year).5 5 Gao, S. (2014). Beijing Population History (pp. 227–240). Beijing: China Renmin University Press.

302

Chapter 11

3.3 Hangzhou See Table 15 for li of Hangzhou, Fuzhou, Nanchang, and Wuchang fu from local records and their supposed populations. Renhe county and Qiantang county were the fuguo counties of Hangzhou. According to Volume 2 of Hangzhou Prefecture Zhi in the Chenghua period, there were 40 urban li in Renhe in the Hongwu period, but the number was reduced by 20% to 32 in the Chenghua period; and there were 354 rural li in Renhe in the Hongwu period, but the number was reduced by 5.9% to 333 in the Chenghua period. For Qiantang County, there were 46 urban li and 114 rural li in the Chenghua period. Therefore, by extension, there should have been 58 urban li and 121 rural li in Qiantang in the Hongwu period based on the same proportion. That amounted to 98 urban li altogether, about 17% of the total li in the Hongwu years. In Table 2, the urban li of the two counties made up 15% of the total li in the Chenghua years—very close to 17%. It was recorded in Daming Yitong Zhi that there were 373 and 161 li in Renhe and Qiantang respectively, that is, 94.7% and 89.9% respectively of the number in the Hongwu period. That means compared with the Hongwu period, the number of li in the Tianshui years had dropped by between 5% and 10%. There were 1.081 million civilians in Hangzhou in Hongwu 24th year. According to Volume 2 of Hangzhou Prefecture Zhi, in the Chenghua period, there were 1,400 li in Hangzhou Prefecture in Hongwu 24th year, including Table 15

Population of Hangzhou, Fuzhou, Nanchang, and Wuchang fu in the Ming Dynasty. Unit: 1,000

Provincial Population Fuguo capital density County

Urban Urban Total Total Number (%) Civilian number of urban percent- population popu- military urban lation popula- popuof li li of Fuguo age lation tion County

Hangzhou 142

394 179 738 126 68 61 1566

Nanchang Fuzhou

51 32

Wuchang Total

18

Renhe Qiantang Nanchang Minxian Hougong Jiangxiang

40 58 57 16 9 15 195

10.2 32.4 7.7 12.7 13.2 24.6 12.5

343 156 473 90 49 70 1181

35 51 37 11 6 17 157

37 0 5 19 0 11 72

72 51 42 30 6 28 229

Source: Volume 2 of Hangzhou Fu Zhi in the Chenghua period; Volume 15–16 of The General Records of Bamin in the Hongzhi period; Volume 5 of Nanchang Prefecture Records in the Wanli period; Volume 1 of Huguang Tujing Zhishu in the Jiajing period. Data of “Population density” comes from Appendix 1.

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period

303

Renhe and Qiantang that made up 40.9%. Based on the population proportion, there were 442,000 civilians in the two counties, including the urban population (that is, the urban civilian population of Hangzhou) of 17.1%. Therefore, including the soldiers, the total urban population would have been 88,000. 3.4 Fuzhou It was recorded in “Xiang and Du,” Volume 15 of The General Records of Bamin in the Hongzhi period that xiang referred to the rural area and du, the urban area. However, du and li in Fujian were different from li in other places. In our discussion tu is used for estimation here. There were two fuguo counties in Fuzhou. One was Min County, while the other was Fuguan. In Min County, there were 13 tu in 4 fang. The distance between West Fengchi xiang and the prefectural capital was unavailable, therefore, it is assumed the county was a suburban village and thus can be treated as a tu government. That means, altogether, Min County governed 16 tu. For Houguan County, there were two fang and one xiang bringing the total to 9 tu. There was 139 rural tu and the urban tu, or the urban population, made up 13% of the total population of the two counties. According to Daming Yitong Zhi, in the Tianshun period, there was 80 li in Min County and Houguan—19.1% of the total 481 li of the whole prefecture. Appendix 1 shows that the civilian population of Fuzhou Prefecture was 634,000 in Hongwu 24th year. So, the population of Min county and Houguan ought to have been 121,000, including an urban population of 13% and a civilian population assumed to be 17,000. The military population of 19,000 that exceeded the civilian population brought the total urban population to 36,000. 3.5 Nanchang There were two fuguo counties in Nanchang prefectural capital, Nanchang and Xinjian. According to Daming Yitong Zhi in the Tianshun period, there were 1,566 li in Nanchang Prefecture, of which Nanchang and Xinjin had 696 li, that is, about 44.4% of the total. According to Appendix 1, the civilian population of Nanchang Prefecture was 1.114 million in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) meaning the civilian population of Nanchang and Xinjian counties ought to have been 495,000. According to Volume 5 of Nanchang Prefecture Zhi in the Wanli period, there were 57 urban tu in the two counties, that is, 7.7% of the total litu. Therefore, the civilian population of Nanchang ought to have been 37,000 and would have been 42,000, including the soldiers of one wei. Assuming that the li was the same in the Tianshui and Hongwu period, there would have been 157.6 and 142.3 households for every li in Jiangxi Province and Nanchang fu, respectively in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). Therefore, there were

304

Chapter 11

41,000 inhabitants in Nanchang’s 57 urban tu thereby bringing the total population, including the military population, to 46,000. 3.6 Wuchang There were not only records of li but also categorized records of urban and rural li in Huguang Tujing Zhishi in the Jiajing period. It was recorded in Volume 2 that there were 61 li of registered inhabitants in Wuchang county including 15 urban li and 46 rural li. It was recorded in Volume 8 that there were previously 21 li of registered inhabitants in Xiangyang county, but the number rose to 35 in 1504 (Hongzhi 17th year), including 6 urban li and 29 rural li. In what period did the “previously 21 li” in Xiangyang county refer to? Based on the only information available, the year was prior to 1504 (Hongzhi 17th year). According to Daming Yitong Zhi, in the Tianshun period, there were 19 li in Xiangyang county. Also, according to Volume  ## of Xiangyang Fu Zhi (The Records of Xiangyang) in the Wanli period, there were 15 li in Xiangyang county in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). Therefore, it can be understood that from the Hongwu period to the Tianshun period to the year referred to as “previously” in Huguang Tujing Zhishi, the number of li grew gradually. Until the Hongzhi period, the number of li increased significantly because of the inclusion of the floating population. With these figures, it can be concluded that “previously” in Huguang Tujing Zhishi referred to the time prior to the Hongzhi period but later than the Tianshun period. The above method is used to calculate the urban population of Wuchang. According to Daming Yitong Zhi, in the Tianshun period, there were 265 li in Wuchang Prefecture, including 63 li (38.2%) in Wuchang. According to Volume 1 of Huguang Tujing Zhishu, there were 61 li in Wuchang county, of which there were 15 urban li, accounting for 24.6%. According to Appendix Table 1, the civilian population of Wuchang fu was 240,000 inhabitants in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), so the population of Jiangxia was 23,000 (calculated from 240,000 ×  0.382 × 0.246). Together with the military population, the population ought to have been 44,000. 3.7 Other Provincial Capitals The method below that calculates the population of prefectural capitals is applied to other provincial capitals. The results show that their populations were significantly higher than that of prefectural capitals. Jinan was an exception with a civilian population of only 3,000, only higher than Yanzhou and Dongchang. That is because it was not until the early years of Hongwu that the provincial capital of Shandong moved to Jinan from Qingzhou, thereby accounting for the 23,000 inhabitants of Qingzhou. Apart from Jinan, Chengdu,

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period

305

the provincial capital of Sichuan, also had a small population of only 2,000— lower than Chongqing that had a population of 16,000. That results from the wars of the Yuan Dynasty and more importantly, the immigrant influx from East China and its distribution. 4

Prefectural Capitals

The last section shows a close relationship between the population density and the population of the provincial capital, a relationship that should be the same for prefectural capitals and county capitals. That means the more populated they are, the larger the urban population. This section takes as examples capital of Shaoxing Fu, Jiaxing Fu, and Huzhou Fu of Zhejiang and Zhenjiang Fu of South Jiangsu. 4.1 Prefectural Capital Shaoxing, Jiaxing, Huzhou, and Zhenjiang 4.1.1 Shaoxing According to Volume 1 of Shaoxing Records in the Wanli period, the prefectural capital was divided into four quarters; the two western quarters were governed by Shanyin County and further divided into 23 fang, while the two eastern quarters were governed by Kuaiji County and further divided into 16 fang. It is also recorded that the two counties governed 188 and 104 rural tu respectively and that the urban tu was 11.8% of the rural tu. According to Daming Yitong Zhi in the Tianshun period, there were 211 and 131 li in Shanyin and Kuaiji respectively. That means there were as many li in Shanyin in the Wanli period as there were in the Tianshun period, while there were 11 more li in Kuaiji in the Wanli period than in the Tianshun period. It is also known that the li of Shanyin and Kuaiji made up 27.6% of the total li in the prefecture. Therefore, given that the civilian population of Shaoxing fu was 133.5 million in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), the total population of Shanyin and Kuaiji ought to have been about 369,000. Furthermore, assuming that the urban population was 11.8% of the total, then the urban population of Shaoxing fu ought to have been 44,000. If the size of a li in the Hongwu period remained the same as the size of li in the Tianshun period, then there ought to have been 215.7 households for every li in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), meaning the civilian population of Shaoxing fu ought to have been 42,000 with 39 li. This is an indication of the closeness of the results obtained. However, the urban population of Shaoxing fu was surprisingly much larger than that of most prefectures in South Jiangsu and North Zhejiang that had a population of just about 20,000. Therefore, the population size of Shaoxing fu and its county capitals should be considered as an

306

Chapter 11

exception and, therefore, should not serve as the reference while calculating the population of other prefectural capitals and county capitals. 4.1.2 Jiaxing According to Volume 8 and 11 of Jiaxing Records in the Hongzhi period, there were 383 li in Jiaxing County and 220 li in Xiushui County, very close to the 381 and 232 li in the Tianshun period. Furthermore, the urban li of the two counties totaled 24, accounting for 3.9%, a very low proportion, while in Jiaxing fu, the total li of the two counties accounted for 41.8% of the prefecture in the Tianshun period. Assuming that remained the same in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), the population of the two counties would have been 685,000, and the urban population of the prefecture would have been 27,000 with a 3.9% urban population ratio. If the size of li in the Hongwu period remained the same as in the Tianshun period, then there would have been 223.6 households for every li in Jiaxing fu in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), meaning the population of Jiaxing fu ought to have been 27,000 with 24 li. 4.1.3 Huzhou There were two fuguo counties in Huzhou fu: Wucheng and Guian. According to Volume 4 of Huzhou Records in the Chenghua period, there were 282 li in Wucheng County including 10 urban li and 309 li in Guian County, including 10 urban li. That means the urban li accounted for 3.4% of the total li in fuguo counties, slightly lower than the percentage in Jiaxing. According to Daming Yitong Zhi in the Tianshun period, there were 267 li in Wucheng and 309 li in Gui, hence the assumption that the number of li in the Hongwu period would have been more or less identical. The li of the two counties made up 47.9% of the total li of the prefecture, so their population would have been around 575,000, inhabitants meaning the urban population of the prefecture would have been 20,000. If li size in the Hongwu period remained the same as the Tianshun period, then there would have been 199.7 households for every li in Huzhou fu in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), meaning the population of Huzhou fu ought to have been 20,000 with 20 li. 4.1.4 Zhenjiang According to Volume 1 of Dantu County Zhi in the Wanli period, there were 19 fang and 22 tu in the prefectural capital of Zhenjiang. Half a page of the document is missing, therefore, we assume that there were 252 rural li and,

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period

307

together with prefectural urban li, a total of 274 li. According to Daming Yitong Zhi, in the Tianshun period, there were 270 li in Dantu County, close to the number recorded in Dantu County Zhi. That means the prefectural urban li made up 8% of the li of fuguo counties. If the li size in the Hongwu period remained the same as that in the Tianshun period, then the li of Dantu County made up 47.7% of the prefecture, meaning the population of Dantu County would have been 260,000 and the urban population of Zhenjiang fu would have been 21,000. Compared with the urban population of Changzhou fu that was 10,000, the urban population of Zhenjiang was significantly larger due to its geographical location. Zhengjiang was at the junction of the Yangtze River and the Grand Canal, making it more appealing to industrial and commercial population. Other Prefectural Capitals 4.2 See Table 16 for the estimated population of 40 other ordinary prefectural capitals of seven provinces, including Beiping, Shandong, Jingshi, Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangxi, and Huguang. To make the distinction more visible, in addition to dividing Jingshi into north and south, the areas south of the Yangtze River are divided into Southern Jiangsu and Southern Anhui. Generally, according to the local records, the number of li in the mid to late Ming was close to that in the Hongwu years. For instance, according to Hejian Records in the Jiajing period, there were 25 li in Hejian Fu, Beiping, while according to Daming Yitong Zhi, there were 27 in the Tianshun period. This shows that the data was quite close. However, this is not the same case in other places. For example, according to Volume 11 of Qingzhou Records in the Jiajing period, there were 180 li in fuguo county, Yidu, including 13 prefectural urban li that made up 7.2% of the prefecture, and an urban population of 15,000. However, according to Daming Yitong Zhi, in the Tianshun period, there were 267 li in Yidu County. Assuming this figure and the ratio of 7.2% were the same in the Hongwu period, then the urban population of Qingzhou Fu would have been as high as 23,000 inhabitants. The difference probably stemmed from Qingzhou’s special status as the prefectural capital. Like in Qingzhou, the number of li of Hanyang Fu and Huangzhou Fu in the mid to late Ming were different from the number in the Hongwu years. According to Huguang Tujing Zhishu, in the Jiajing period, there were 43 li in Hanyang County, four of which were urban. However, according to Daming Yitong Zhi in the Tianshun period, there were only 26 li. The civilian population of the prefecture was 2,000 based on “Huguang Tujing Zhishu” and 1,000

308

Chapter 11

based on “Daming Yitong Zhi” respectively. As the results do not differ significantly, they are not subject to adjustment. The data from Daming Yitong Zhi are applied in Appendix 5 for Hanyang and Huangzhou. For De’an Fu that had only 7 li in its fuguo county, we assume as a way of meeting the requirements of an urban city, that it had a population of 1,000, same as that of Hanyang Fu. The scenario for the rest is the identical and has not been detailed here. Shanyang County is Fuguo county of Huai’an Fu. According to Volume 3 of Huan’an Records in the Wanli period, in Shanyang, there were all together 35 tu, including 11 registered tu in the four quarters of the old city and 24 tu in the eight suburban xiang and fang of the new city. Also, there were 80 rural tu based on xiang. According to Daming Yitong Zhi, in the Tianshun period, 101 li (tu) were governed by Shanyang County, less than the total number of the documented urban and rural tu. Generally, the number of li in the late Ming was smaller than that in the Tianshun period. The situation in Shanyang was exceptional probably because tu was compiled in the new city. The new city Huai’an was founded in the wartime late Yuan Dynasty, so it did not have a significantly large population. As a result, its 24 tu were built in the mid to late Ming when the water transport of grain to the capital developed and the population increased. As such, the tu of the new city was not included in the discussion of the ratio of urban li to rural li in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). The situation in Jiangxi was different. Take Jianchang Fu as an example, according to Daming Yitong Zhi, in the Tianshun period, there were 523 li in Jianchang Prefectre, including 284 in Nancheng County that accounted for 54.3% of the total li. The population of Jianchang Fu was 513,000 in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), so the population of Nancheng County was 278,000. According to Volume 3 of Jianchang Records in the Zhengde period, the urban li of Nancheng accounted for 8.6% of the total number of li, so the civilian population of Jianchang Fu was 24,000. Also according to Volume 3, the population of Nanchang County was 228,000 in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), meaning the urban population of Jianchang Fu was 19,000. In Jiangxi Province, the ratio of the prefectural li to the provincial li was highly related to the ratio of the prefectural population to the provincial population and the prefectural population calculated from the county li was close to that from the county population. Therefore, for Jianchang fu and Linjiang fu whose population calculated from the two methods differ significantly, the discussion sticks to the population calculated from the county population as shown in Appendix 5. Ranked in order of prefectural population density, Zhejiang, with an average of 23,000 inhabitants per prefecture—the largest population per prefecture,

309

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period Table 16

Urban population of 40 fu (zhou) of nine areas in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). Population unit: 1,000

Population Zhejiang South Jiangxi South Fujian Shandong North Beiping Huguang Jiangsu Anhui Jiangsu Fu 2 %Urban li/ 3.7 fuguo li % 23 Average civilian population per city 295 Civilian population density per area

2 5.9

7 6.8

3 10.6

5 6.9

2 7.4

1 12.1

5 9.5

13 9.7

15

12

13

10

13

11

2

5

127

49

39

32

40

29

22

11

Notes: The italic part in Appendix 5: Zhejiang governs Jiaxing and Huzhou fus; South Jiangsu governs Changzhou and Zhenjiang fus; South Anhui governs Huizhou, Chizhou, and Ningguo fus; North Jiangsu governs only Huai’an Fu. Jiangxi governs seven prefectures including Ruizhou, Linjiang, Fuzhou, Jianchang, Yuanzhou, Ganzhou, and Nan’an. Fujian governs four prefectures including Jianning, Zhangzhou, Tingzhou, and Shaowu. The data of North Huguang and South Huguang are identical and thus are combined to include include 14 prefectures and zhou namely Huangzhou, De’an, Jingzhou, Xiangyang, Hanyang, Changsha, Yuezhou, Changdu, Baoqing, Hengzhou, Yongzhou, Chenzhou, Chenzhou, and Jingzhou. Beiping governs five prefectures including Baoding, Hejian, Shunde, Guangping, and Yongping. Shandong governs Qingzhou and Yanzhou fu. Provincial capitals are not included in the prefectures, except for Qingzhou, which was the provincial capital of Shandong before Jinan in the early Hongwu years. Source: The italic parts in Appendix 1 and 5

came first in South China. South Jiangsu came second with an average of 15,000 inhabitants per prefecture. The population density of Jiangxi, South Anhui, and Fujian was between 30 and 50, with a prefectural population ranging between 10,000 and 13,000. In North China, Shandong came first with the largest prefectural population, and North Jiangsu came second, followed by Huguang and Beiping. Though the population density of Huguang was only half that of Beiping, the population of its prefectural capital was 1.5 times higher that of Beiping. That is because, in the Hongwu period, Beiping was largely an immigrant destination, which explains the extreme low prefectural population. According to Appendix Table 5, Baoding, the biggest prefectural capital in Beiping

310

Chapter 11

30 y = 0.1912x + 2.3629 R² = 0.5712

Prefectural capital popula�on

25 20 15 10 5 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Density Diagram 4

The relationship between the civilian population and the population density of 36 ordinary prefectural capitals in 1391. Population density in (x)

other than the provincial capital, had a population of only 4,000. Yongping, the smallest prefectural capital, had a civilian population of only 400. Even with the inclusion of the stationed troops, the prefecture’s population barely reached 6,000. According to definition of city in this book, a city should have a minimum population of 1,000. However, a more accurate result may be attained if all provinces are compared without a north-south demarcation. It should be noted that the high population density of Jiaxing fu (497 people) is excluded in Diagram 4 because its inclusion would deform the diagram. Besides, the data of Linjiang fu and Ganzhou fu in Jiangxi as well as the data of Guangping fu in Beiping deviated from the average and have only been included after we found that the ratio of their population to the provincial population differed significantly from the ratio of the number of their li to that of the provincial li. See Diagram 4 for the relationship between the civilian population and the population density of 36 ordinary prefectural capitals. The more densely populated, the more people there are in an ordinary prefectural capital city, and vice versa. So, the prefectural population is highly negatively correlated with the population density. The regression equation is Y = 5.145x − 7.656, R2 = 0.5843, which means 58% of the variance of the population can be explained by the population density. In other words, prefectures with a high population density equally had a larger population.

311

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period 0.3 0.25 0.2

- 0.367 y = 0.2993x R² = 0.401

0.15 0.1 0.05 0

0

Diagram 5

50

100

150

200

250

The relationship between the urban li and the population density of 35 prefectural capitals

In addition, the population of the 39 ordinary prefectural capitals varies with the ratio of the urban li to the fuguo li. The larger the population, the lower the ratio. So, there is a medium negative correlation between the prefectural population and the urban li, which can be expressed by the equation Y  =  −1.01ln(x)  +  0.1897, R2  =  0.2743. After excluding Jingzhou, Yuezhou, Baoqing, and Hengzhou, whose data are at the left bottom of Diagram 5 and deviate from the curve, the equation is modified to Y = −0.034ln (x) + 0.2108; R2 = 0.4042. See more information in Diagram 5. The population of other prefectural capitals, according to the Diagram 4 equation, does not match the samples and the curve, especially for prefectures in North China and prefectures with a small population: The resulted prefectural population is many times higher than the actual population meaning probably that, besides population density, population size also influences the prefectural population—a phenomenon that is not taken into consideration in Diagram 4. On the contrary, population of the prefectural capital, according to the Diagram 5 equation, matches the samples and the curve. The calculation is as follows: Assume the prefectural population is A1, the prefectural li A2, the population of the fuguo county B1, and the fuguo li B2, the urban population

312

Chapter 11

C1, and the urban li C2; the ratio of urban li and fuguo li is C2/B2, which can be calculated from Diagram 5. In Chapter 2, it has been proved that there is a high correlation between the proportion of the prefectural li and the provincial li as well as between the proportion of the prefectural population and the provincial population. The conclusion can be applied further: The proportion of the county li to the prefectural li is highly correlated with the proportion of the county population to the prefectural population; the proportion of the urban li to the fuguo li is highly correlated to the proportion of the urban population to the population of the fuguo county. Hence the equation: B1/A1 = B2/A2 = C2/B2 = C1/B1. A1 is presented in Appendix 1. A2 and B2 were available in Daming Yitong Zhi in the Tianshun period, and hence B1 = A1 * B2/A2. For their part, C2/B2, or the proportion of the urban li to the fuguo li, is available as is indicated above, and hence C1 = B1 * C2/B2 = (A1 * B2/A2) * (C2/B2). The proportion of the prefectural urban li by province is listed in Appendix 5, in which the italics are from literature, while the regular fonts are from computation. See Appendix 5 and Map 11 for the civilian population of ordinary prefectural capital in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year). Prefectural capitals having a civilian population of 20,000 people and above are defined as “large prefectural capital,” and those with a population less than 20,000 are defined as “small prefectural capital.” Jinan, Taiyuan, Kaifeng, Xi’an, Wuchang, Chengdu, and Kunming and the provincial capitals of Shandong, Shanxi, Henan, Shaanxi, Huguang Sichuan, and Yunan, are all small prefectures. At that time, Guizhou was not a province, and Guiyang, which later became its provincial capital, apital was just barracks. It is still beyond explanation why Guilin became a “large prefecture.” If the military stationed in the prefectural capital (one-third defended, and two-thirds farmed) and their families were viewed as residents (each soldier brought with him two family members), they would have totaled 5,600 people—the exact size to constitute a garrison. Including the stationed military would mean 15 more “large prefectural capitals”—Kaifeng, Henan, Taiyuan, Huizhou, Fengyang, Raozhou, Jianchang, Ganzhou, Wuchang, Jingzhou, Huangzhou, Ningbo, Zhaoqing, Chengdu, and Yunnan, including a national capital and five provincial capitals. See more information in Appendix 5 and Map 11.

Map 11

The civilian population of ordinary prefectural capitals in 1393

Map 12

The total population of ordinary prefectural capitals in 1393

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period

315

4.3 Prefectural Capitals as Industrial and Commercial Centers For prefectural capitals that are also industrial and commercial centers, their population size is not based on the proportion of the prefectural li and the population density. Instead, a different approach is adopted in determining their population. 4.3.1 Suzhou According to Hukou, Volume 14 of “Gusu Zhi” by Wang’ao published during the Zhengde period (1506–1521), in Suzhou, the number of households in the early Ming Dynasty remained about the same as at the end of the Yuan Dynasty. In the Ming Dynasty, Suzhou was captured by Zhang Shicheng, thereby leading to the influx of residents. Then it was conquered by the Ming troops without triggering a civilian massacre. That means the population of Suzhou should have multiplied; however, according to the literature, there were fewer than 100,000 households in the Zhengde period. “Fewer than 100,000” should mean between 50,000 and 100,000. If we take the 75,000 as the mean, there would have been a population of 380,000 people in Suzhou during the Zhengde period. So presumably, there would have been 300,000 people (including the military) before the Hongwu emigration wave. During the wave of emigration, the outgoing artisans and the migrating affluent alone accounted for 40% to 50% of the population of Suzhou, meaning the rest of the population, i.e., 45%, ought to have been 165,000—higher than the above figure calculated from the average household per li. According to in Hukou, Volume 10 of Suzhou Prefecture Zhi, the household number of counties of Wu County, the fuguo county of Suzhou, was 245,000 in 1371 (Hongwu 4th year) and 285,000 in 1376 (Hongwu 9th year) respectively, and that of Changzhou County, 356,000 and 381,000 respectively, totaling between 600,000 and 660,000. The total population of the two counties would probably be over 700,000 by 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), including the population of Suzhou city that accounted for 40.4%. Suzhou “is one of the most important cities in the region. It is famous for its prosperity and richness, its dense population, and everything that it takes to make a magnificent city,” according to Matteo Ricci in 1582 (Wanli 10th year).6 Suzhou had a population of 610,000 in 1580 (Wanli 8th year), calculated from the population growth rate. 4.3.2 Taicang According to History of Ming Dynasty: Geographical Zhi, Taicang Wei was established under the reign of the founding emperor of the Ming Dynasty in 6 Ricci, M. (1983). Matteo Ricci’s Notes about China. (p. 338). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

316

Chapter 11

1366 (Wu 1st year), and it became Zhou in 1497 (Hongzhi 10th year). That means by 1393 (Hong 26th year), Taicang ought to have been a wei instead of a zhou or county. Taicang boasted a large population because it was the starting point of rice water transportation from the north as well as an important port for overseas trade in the Yuan Dynasty and the early Ming Dynasty. In the late Yuan Dynasty, Taicang was the battlefield between the warring factions—Fang Guozhen and Zhang Shicheng, and so it suffered population loss. According to Preface of Taichang Zhou Zhi in the Jiajing period (1548), “Fang’s army inflicted a crushing defeat on Zhang’s army by killing five thousand soldiers … At that time, tens of thousands of households in Taicang were reduced to rubble. Fang ordered a retreat … [He] allowed vagrants to resume their work, yet there were still no fewer than ten thousand households in the city.”7 Despite the warfare, surprisingly, there were over 10,000 households in Taicang City. That means there were at least 20,000 households with 100,000 inhabitants in the city at the prime of rice transportation. Afterward, the battle between Zhu Yuanzhang and Zhang Shicheng broke out. According to Zhou Chen, there were 8,986 households in Taichang in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) and only 738 in 1432 (Xuande 7th year).8 Assuming there were 5 people for each one household, then there were 45,000 people in Taichang in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year), and a total of 56,000 if the 11,000 soldiers and their families living in Taicang and Zhenhai wei are included. 4.3.3 Yangzhou The Great Canal coalesced with the Yangtze River in Yangzhou, transforming it into an important commercial city along the canal, “a south-north demarcating gateway.” Yangzhou was a pivotal city, be it for the government officials, tributes, or salt and grain transport. However, the east side of the old city was distant from the canal in the early Ming Dynasty hence it was difficult for Yangzhou to function as a transport and trade station and also difficult to the basic necessities of citizens. In addition, the city was unable to accommodate its increasing population, and as a result, it expanded towards the canal from the east and the south.9 The citizens of Yangzhou were massacred by Qing troops in the late Ming Dynasty, and according to Volume 3 of Mingji Nanlue, there used to be 480,000 people in Yangzhou but zero after the massacre. Based on that information, the population of Yangzhou ought to have 7 Preface of Taicang Zhou Zhi. (Photocopy from Tianyi Pavilion) (Jiajing period). 8 Zhou, C. Yuhang Zaihu Buzhu Gongshu, in Cheng, M. (Ed.), Huangming Wenheng (Vol. 27): Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature (No. 1373). (p. 816). 9 Wang, Z. (1996). Social Changes of Huizhou Merchants and Huaiyang in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. (p. 76). Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore.

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period

317

been 400,000 people, at least, in the Wanli period and about 100,000 in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year). 4.3.4 Quanzhou Quanzhou was an industrial and commercial city in decline. Quanzhou was instrumental with regard to foreign trade in the Song and Yuan dynasties because it was the biggest foreign trade port and the largest industrial and commercial city in China. However, due to war and the maritime trade ban in the late Yuan and the early Ming dynasties, long-time Arab merchants were forced to withdraw and return to their own country causing the status of Quanzhou to fall drastically. According to Chapter 3, the population of Quanzhou fu was over 530,000 inhabitants in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). The dense population could explain why there were as many as 262 tu in Jinjiang County, the fuguo county of Quanzhou, in the Hongwu period. However, there were only 20 fang and 135 tu left in Jinjiang in the Hongzhi period. By comparing the number of tu with that of the households of six prefectures including Fuzhou, Funing, Tingzhou, Shaowu, Yanping, and Zhangzhou in Volume 15 and 16 of The General Records of Bamin in the Hongzhi period, we can conclude that there were 161 households for one tu. Assuming that the rural population of Jinjiang corresponded to 130 tu and there were another 132 urban tu, then there ought to be about 21,120 households with 110,000 people in Quanzhou in the Hongwu years, and probably about 150,000 inhabitants including unregistered merchants. Nevertheless, there were only 20 tu with about 16,000 people in Quanzhou in the Hongzhi period, and just over 20,000 inhabitants if the soldiers in the garrison and their families are included. That means Quanzhou could only be a medium-sized prefectural capital in the Hongzhi period. Quanzhou suffered from a plague in 1562 (Jiajing 41st year). According to Volume 15 of Jinjiang County Zhi in the Qianlong period, “seven out of ten people died due to the plague in Quanzhou.” According to the average annual population growth rate of the Ming Dynasty, the population of Quanzhou was about 35,000 inhabitants that year, and down to 11,000 after the plague. Until 1580, the population of Quanzhou was at most 20,000, which, by all standards, was lower than the population of a normal prefectural capital. 5

County Capital

5.1 Materials and Methodology Likewise, it can also be assumed that each county’s urban and rural li either increased or merged proportionately from the early to the middle and late

318

Chapter 11

Ming Dynasty. The most typical example is, according to Volume 2 of Hangzhou Prefecture Zhi in the Chenghua period, there used to be 4 urban li and a total of 62 xiang li in 16 xiang in Lin’an county, but because they merged, the number “today” has reduced to 3 and 47 respectively. It was also recorded in Daming Yitong Zhi in the Tianshun period that there were 46 li in Lin’an County, suggesting that the 66 li belonged to the Hongwu period, while 47 li belonged to the Tianshun period. Thus, the proportion of the urban li to the total li of the county was 6.4% at both periods, highly consistent with each other. According to Xiangyin County Zhi in the Jiajing period, “The original 35 li in the Hongwu period have been merged to 28 li; the number of fang has also decreased by one-tenth.” According to Huangguang Tujing Zhishu, in the Jiajing period, there were 35 li in Xiangyin County. However, according to Daming Yitong Zhi, there were 39 li. Thus, the 35 li in Huangguang Tujing Zhishu in the Jiajing period belonged to the Hongwu period. From the example of Xiangyin County, we learn that fang was merged along with rural li. Yet there also existed opposite examples where li were not merged but the number of fang increased instead. For example, according to Volume 15 of Huangguang Tujing Zhishu in the Jiajing period, in Ningxiang county of Changshao fu, “There used to be 18 li of registered households; today one new fang has been established, making it 19 altogether.” Nevertheless, within the range of prefectures, assuming the urban li was merged at a similar rate as the rural li, it would be plausible to predict the urban population based on the proportion of urban li to rural li in the Hongwu period. Some counties had no capital in North China. As mentioned above, Yongping was not considered a prefectural capital because of its small population. If prefectures could be without capitals, logically, counties also ought to have been without capitals. For example, in Gucheng county of Hejian fu, “there were no marketplaces” in the early years of the Ming Dynasty. It was not until the Zhengtong period that “two markets were finally created, dwellings increased, and goods and money circulated.”10 Likewise, in Wuqiao County, county capital and markets were only established in Chenghua 2nd year to attract merchants and travelers.11 The urbanization of both counties resulted from the canal economy, without which many counties, including Qingfeng County of Daming fu, would have had no marketplaces and, therefore, no merchant gathering.12 Indeed, there were only 8 li, 11 li, and 25 li in Gucheng, Wuqiao, and Qingfeng counties, respectively in the Tianshun period. Therefore, we set 10 li 10 Gucheng County Zhi (Vol. 1). (The Wanli period). 11 Hejian Prefecture Zhi (Vol. 2). (The Jiajing period). 12 Qingfeng Prefecture Zhi (Vol. 2). (The Jiajing period).

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period

319

as a low requirement for counties having a capital, while those with less than 10 li considered counties with no capital. This method may lead to accuracies, but it avoids an overestimation of the population of counties with no capital. In South China, the situation was identical. A good example is Hangzhou Prefecture where, according to Volume 2 of Hangzhou Prefecture Zhi in the Chenghua period, there were 11, 7, 5, and 4 urban li in Haining, Yuhang, Fuyang, and Lin’an counties, respectively, but no record of urban li was found in Yuqian, Xincheng, and Changhua counties. After consulting Daming Yitong Zhi in the Tianshun period, we found that there were 9 li, 12 li, and 9 li in the three counties respectively. This numbers conflict with the 21 li, 43 li, and 16 li in Volume 2 of Hangzhou Prefecture Zhi in the Chenghua period instead. That means the number of li dropped significantly from the Hongwu period to the Tianshun period. Interestingly, when the 43 li in Xincheng County plummeted to only 12 li, a new li located in Changding Xiang was created and “governed by the county capital,” meaning that the new li was an urban li. Similarly, a new li (probably was also urban li) was also created in Xianchuanhou Xiang of Yuqian County and named after Qianchuan. That means some counties with a small population probably had no urban li and thus no county capital qualified as a city in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year). 5.2 The Urban Population of Other Ordinary County Capitals With the exception of the six prefectures with abnormal population size including Shaoxing, Huzhou, Jiaxing, Tingzhou, Jianning, and Yangping Yanping, Diagram 6 and the equation Y = 1.5133x − 1.6544, R2 = 0.4318 describe the relationship between the population density of the prefecture and the average county population of 45 prefectures, including Beiping (including 269 counties) with records of urban li. That means 46% of the variance of the county population of these 45 prefectures can be explained by the prefectural population density. That means the more densely populated the region, the more densely populated the county. The 52 prefectures are further divided into 9 provinces or regions, and the average county population of each prefecture, the proportion of urban li, and the population density are listed in the following table. As indicated in the table, the county population is highly related to the population density in Shandong, North Jiangsu, and Beiping in North China. In contrast, the county population is unrelated to the proportion of urban li in South Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Jiangxi. That means the county population is unrelated to the proportion of urban li both in the south and north China. Table 17 describes the relationship between the county population density and the county population of 115 counties of 11 prefectures in North China,

320

Chapter 11

Average population of county seat

12 10

y = 1.5133x- 1.6544 R² = 0.4318

8 6 4 2 0

0

1

2

3

-2

Diagram 6

Table 17

Population

4

5

6

Density （ Inx)

The relationship between the population density of 43 prefectures and the average population of 277 counties in Northern China in 1391

The average population of 289 county capitals of 9 regions including Zhejiang in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) (1,000 people) South Zhejiang Jiangxi South Fujian Huguang Shandong North Beiping Jiangsu Anhui Jiangsu

No. of county 8 capitals 2.4 %Proportion of urban li to the total li of the county % Average civil6 ian population of each county Civilian popu- 183 lation density of each region

17

29

7

30 12.0

5.0

5.3

7.5

7

6

4

152

49

39

83

34

8 13.4

73

7.9

6.0

7.5

7

2

3

2

1

32

11

42

32

22

Source: Appendix 3

in the form of an exponential curve, written in the equation Y  0.0265 e 1.2476 x; R2 = 0.7015; That means 70% of the variance of the county population can be explained using population density. Thus, the analysis improves the correlation between the county population density and the county population of North China. The results match the data provided.

321

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period

Average population of county seat

8 7 6

y = 0.0265e 1.2476x R² = 0.7895

5 4 3 2 1 0

0

Diagram 7

1

2

3

Density （ lnx）

4

5

The relationship between the population density of 12 prefectures and the average population of 151 counties in Northern China in 1391

In Southeast China, besides population density, other factors also played a part in determining the population of county capital. For instance, the population density of Shaoxing Prefecture was 142 inhabitants, while the average population of its six counties (not prefectural capital at the same time) was as large as 14,000 people. County wise, the population of Xiaoshan and Yuyao was between 27,000 and 29,000, while the population of Zhuji, Shangyu, Shengxian, and Xianchang was between 7,000 and 10,000. On the contrary, Huzhou, had an average county population of only 3,000 despite having a population density of 191 inhabitants. Yuqian County, in the west of Hangzhou Prefecture, adjacent to Huzhou, was even a county without a capital. Despite having a population density of only 15, 32, and 38 inhabitants respectively, the average population of the counties of Tingzhou, Yanping, and Jianning prefectures of Fujian reached 8,600, 11,300, and 10,800 inhabitants. Similarly, Jianchang and Fuzhou in Jiangxi Province which was adjacent to Fujian, had an average county population of up to 9,000 despite a population density of only 64 and 118 inhabitants. Tingzhou was important for salt transport to South Jiangxi and, therefore, received a significant number of salt merchants and salt porters in the Song and Yuan dynasties. About 20% of the population of Tingzhou lived in the county capital, possibly because of the flourishing salt business. Likewise, the large population of Yanping and Jianning prefectures resulted from being close

322

Chapter 11

Average population of county seat 12 10 y = 0.9089e 0.3837x R² = 0.4799

8 6 4 2 0

0

Diagram 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

The relationship between the population density of 31 prefectures and the average population of 126 counties in Northern China in 1391

to Quanzhou, the foreign trade center. Overseas goods were shipped to Yanping and Shaowu from Quanzhou, and then to Jianchang and Fuzhou in Jiangxi, and finally to Nanchang, or to Jianning from Yanping and then to Guangxin of Jiangxi. Domestic goods were also shipped overseas via the Quangzhou trade route. It can be concluded from the foregoing that trade and trade routes had an influence on the county population that was commonly determined by population density. Thus, excluding Shaoxing, Jiaxing, Huzhou, Tingzhou, Jianning, and Yanping, the relationship between population density and county population of 28 prefectures are displayed on the exponential curve in Diagram 8. The equation is written as Y  0.9089e0.3837x; R2 = 0.564, meaning 56% of the variance of the county population can be explained by population density. The model has significantly improved the accuracy of the estimation of the county population of provinces in South China. The results also align with the given population of other counties. The data of the population of other ordinary counties of Diagram 7 and Diagram 8 are shown in Appendix 5. The results, drawn from the given proportion of urban li to the total li, are listed in Appendix 5 in italics to differentiate.

323

The Urban Population in the Hongwu Period

6

Summary

The provincial urbanization rates are indicated in Table 18. Taking the civilian population as the criterion, the urbanization rate of 13 buzhensi (provinces) was 7.9%. If the military population was included (also excluding inhabitants of the county capital), then the city population reached 8.6% of the total population. In fact, the military population should not have been included in the calculation of the urban population. However, it served as a meaning index in the calculation of the prefectural population given the particularity of Ming’s society. If both urbanization rates are assumed to be over 0.2 and are considered the benchmark, then it is possible to determine that the urbanization Table 18

Province

The urban population and urbanization level of 15 provinces and areas in China in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year). Population unit: 1,000

Total population

Prefectural capital population

Civilian Total

Civilian Total

Beiping 2617 Shangdong 5825 Shaanxi 2658 Henan 2964 Shanxi 4410 South Jingshi 8185 North Jingshi 3143 Jiangxi 8034 South Huguang 2306 North Huguang 1850 Fujian 3701 Zhejiang 10957 Guangdong 3616 Guangxi 1588 Sichuan 1748 Total 63602

2936 40 6042 45 2998 48 3283 46 4726 73 9026 1223 3535 146 8164 197 2507 46 2034 49 3995 258 11237 263 3840 159 1740 46 1988 42 68051 2681

Source: Appendix 5 and Appendix 3

County capital population

179 122 84 256 122 58 107 127 119 172 1299 158 217 63 234 231 91 95 107 70 325 243 293 300 213 91 75 43 103 63 3568 2092

Total urban population

Urbanization rate (%)

Civilian Total Civilian Total 162 301 106 173 245 1381 209 428 141 119 501 563 250 89 105 4773

301 6.2 340 5.2 180 4.0 234 5.8 291 5.6 1457 16.9 280 6.6 465 5.3 186 6.1 177 6.4 568 13.5 593 5.1 304 6.9 118 5.6 166 6.0 5660 7.5

10.3 5.6 6.0 7.1 6.2 16.1 7.9 5.7 7.4 8.7 14.2 5.3 7.9 6.8 8.4 8.3

324

Chapter 11

levels of Beiping, Sichuan, North Huguang, and Shaanxi were driven by the military and garrison population. Considering that there existed almost no city in the frontier, the urbanization rate of China in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) was only between 7.3% and 7.9%. According to Diagram 7, the urbanization levels of the civilian population of 15 provinces in China in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year) can be divided into the following four levels: an urbanization rate of between 13% and 17% in South Jingshi and Fujian; an urbanization rate of between 6% and 13% in Guangdong, North Jingshi, Huguang, Beiping, and Henan; and an urbanization rate of below 6% in the rest of the provinces. The high urbanization level of the civilian population of South Jingshi resulted from Nanjing, the national capital, and the flourishing industry and commerce in Suzhou and Taicang. Fujian’s comparatively higher urbanization level resulted from its status as the center of overseas trade in the Yuan Dynasty. From a total population perspective, South Jingshi and Fujian still had the highest urbanization levels in China in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year), where between 14% and 17% of the population lived in the city. On the contrary, the military population largely contributed to the high urban population rate of over 7% in Beiping, North Jingshi, Henan, Huguang, and Guangdong. The urbanization rate of 8.4% in Sichuan is not a reliable figure, given that there were too many administrative departments for a small population. More precisely, the urbanization rate of the civilian population was 7.5% in China in 1391 (Hongwu 24th year) and 8.3% in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year). More generally speaking, the urbanization rate of the population in China was 8% in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year). From an individual prefecture perspective, the urbanization rate was considerably different from one another. See Map 13 for details. Viewed from the level of urbanization of the civilian population, there are huge differences among prefectures of the same province in North China. The urbanization rate of the Beiping buzhensi (province) was only 6.2%, but that of Beiping fu was as high as 14.2%. The urbanization rate of Shandong was 5.2%, but that of Dongchang fu was only 1.3%. In Shaanxi, the urbanization levels of Lintao fu and Qingyang fu were the highest; however, they were due to the small total population rather than the urban population. In Henan, the urbanization rate of Huaiqing and Weihui were 8%, but that of Nanyang and Runing was only 2%. That was because, like Dongchang, Nanyang and Runing also absorbed an influx of immigrants. Similarly, in Jingshi, the urbanization levels of Fengyang fu, Anqing fu, and Chuzhou fu along the north bank of the Yangtze River, were the lowest. In fact, they were only 3% because these localities were immigrant destinations.

Map 13

The prefectural civilian urbanization rate in 1393

326

Chapter 11

In South China, the situation was identical. In Jingshi, for example, the urbanization rates of Suzhou Prefecture, Suzhou, and Yingtian Prefecture, Nanjing were 15.5% and 58.8%, respectively. However, the urbanization rates of Changzhou and Songjiang were only about 3.3%. The high urbanization rates of the former were due to their large city size. On the contrary, the latter had low urbanization rates because of their large and dense populations. Vice versa, some regions in Guangdong Province and Guangxi Province had high urbanization rates because of their small population and sparse density. Shizhou wei of Huguang had a zero percent urbanization rate. More remotely, in South Huguang, the urbanization rates of Yongshun and Baojing were also zero. For the minority nationality regions there, there is nothing to prove the establishment of administrative units there, not to mention that these areas were a gathering point for the civilian non-agricultural population. The urbanization rate of Quanzhou fu of Fujian was as high as 33%. But over time, the population of Quanzhou city shrank accompanied by a drop in the urbanization rate. In Zhejiang in Hangzhou fu where the provincial capital was located, had the highest urbanization rate. The urbanization rate of Shaoxing fu was close to that of Hangzhou. The border areas of South and West China are considered to get to the stage of “urbanization” when the military population was included. However, this was urbanization in the true sense of the word because the military population was not calculated as part of the urban population even though military personnel lived in the city. Besides, even if the military and garrison population was included, Guizhou and Yunnan still failed to reach the minimum requirement for urbanization.

Map 14

The prefectural urbanization rate in 1393 (Hongwu 26th year)

Chapter 12

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty 1

Methodology

Calculating the urban population of the late Ming Dynasty (around the year 1580) is tantamount to calculating the urban population of: 1)  the national capital; 2)  provincial capitals, prefectures, and counties; 3)  prefectures and counties as industrial and commercial centers; 4) large and medium cities and towns; and 5) general industrial and commercial cities and towns. The population of the national capital in the late Ming Dynasty has been discussed in the previous chapter, while the population of provincial capitals, prefectures, and counties can be calculated based on the assumption that they have the same population growth rate as their respective administrative district. Illustrative examples are provided below as evidence. However, there are two exceptional cases. First, in Northern Huguang, three prefectures, including Xiangyang, Mianyang, and De’an received many immigrants in the Ming Dynasty that, led to an increase in the population growth rate from 11‰ to 15.7‰. The population of Xiangyang in Wanli 8th year (1580), based on this rate, was estimated to be as high as 183,000, a number which is apparently off the mark. This chapter assumes a population growth rate of 6.5‰, as in most regions of Northern Huguang, in calculating the population of Xiangyang and two other prefectures as well as the counties under their jurisdiction in 1580. Second, for counties established after the Tianshun period (1457–1464), their population, in 1580, is calculated according to the number of li listed in Dushi fangyu jiyao (Essence of Historical Geography) and the population growth rate. Because of their large population figures, new counties were created during the Ming Dynasty. They included Jiashan, Pinghu, and Tongxiang established by Jiaxing fu in Xuande 5th year (1430) each with a population equivalent to the average population of the prefectural county. So, we assume each of these three counties had a population of 9,000. More new counties were established in the Ming Dynasty because they were geographically remote, were sparsely populated, and were characterized by civil unrest. For instance, between 1520 and 1569, there were no more than 20 li in the three newly established counties of Heping, Yong’an (Zijin), and Yongning (Xinfeng) in Huizhou fu, Guangdong Province. The population of these areas would be an overestimation if the population of each county was recorded as 1,000.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_013

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

329

According to the above principle, in 1580, Xiangyang fu had a population of 34,000. However, the population should have increased by 15,000 with the establishment of Yunyang fu in 1477 (Chenghua 13th year). According to Vol. 9 of Huguang Tujing Zhishu (Chorography of Maps of Huguang Region), “Today, four wells do not suffice to sustain thousands of households in Yunyang.” That means 3,000 households can be assumed to contain a population of 15,000 inhabitants. 2

Administrative Center Cities: Provincial Capitals, Prefectural Capitals, and Counties

2.1 Provincial Capitals: Wuchang and Nanchang Taking Wuchang, the capital of Huguang Province, as an example, the city had a population of less than 30,000 in Hongwu 26th year. However, in the mid-Ming Dynasty, it is claimed that the eastward river bank collapsed, closing in on dwellings and threatening the livelihood of “tens of thousands of households.”1 The bank revetment project that began in Chenghua 3rd year (1467) greatly expanded the city to the west. That meant the city was probably home to 20,000 households with a population of 100,000. From Hongwu 26th year (1366) to 1580, the annual population growth rate was 6.6‰, similar to that of Wuchang fu. In other words, in sparsely populated immigrant regions, the city could also witness considerable population growth if its population grew at the same rate as that of the region. For its part, Nanchang, the provincial capital of Jiangxi, had an urban population of 49,000 in 1366 (Hongwu 26th year). If it had an annual growth rate of 4.5‰, its urban population would be 114,000 in 1580. Likewise, Fuzhou would have a population of 180,000, and Xi’an and Kaifeng, 130,000 to 150,000, respectively. Taiyuan had an urban population of merely 66,000, while the population of Ji’nan was as low as 25,000. For the other data, see Appendix Table 5. However, this set of data is beyond verification due to inadequate information. 2.2 The Case of Prefectural Capital: Suzhou In previous studies, I estimated the population of Suzhou prefectural capital in the late Ming Dynasty to be more than half a million. Also, in previous citations, Jingbin Huang estimated the population to be 600,000 based on the 1 Huguang tujing zhishu (Huguang Provincial Maps and Records) (Vol. 1). (The reign of Emperor Jiajing 1522–1566).

330

Chapter 12

urban area. Suzhou had an urban population of 300,000 in Hongwu 26th year. With an average annual population growth rate of 3.8‰, the figure would have been 610,000 in 1580. In Appendix Table 3, Suzhou fu had a population of 724,000 because of the inclusion of the population of Taichang. In fact, the shift of grain transportation from the sea to the river caused the economy of Taicang city to decline. That means its population could not have exceeded 100,000 in the late Ming Dynasty. In Hongwu 26th year, two garrisons were stationed in Taicang, but in the late Ming Dynasty, the military population dispersed into places other than city centers. Based on the prefecture’s annual population growth rate, the population of general prefectures, excluding national capitals, provincial capitals, and prefectural capitals as industrial and commercial centers, was about 30,000. By contrast, only Beiping, Guangxi, and Sichuan provinces had population figures between 12,000 and 14,000. 2.3 Cases of County Capital: Yuyao and Other Counties As for Shaoxing Fu, according to Xujie’s article “The Construction of the Jiangnan Wall in Yuyao” cited in Vol. 2 of Shaoxing fu zhi (Shaoxing Fu Records) in the Wanli period, Yuyao County “is hundreds of li away from the sea, with tens of thousands of households along the river”, two-thirds of which resided in Jiangnan. Despite the existence of walls in Jiangbei to prevent Japanese aggression, there was a need to build walls around the city of Jiangnan. Based on this, Huang believes that Yuyao County, like Shanghai County, had a population of over 100,000. Such a large number is confusing given that Yuyao was neither an industrial nor commercial center. It has previously been proven that Yuyao in Hongwu 24th year (1367) had a population of 29,000. With an average annual growth rate of 3.3‰, the county should have had a population of about 54,000 or about 11,000 households in 1580. It means that a considerable proportion of its inhabitants in Jiangnan were farmers, not industrialists or businessmen. Assuming Jiangbei and Jiangnan were home to 20,000 households, the former would have had around 6,700 households with a population of 34,000, slightly more than the population in Hongwu 24th year. It can, therefore, be deduced that the urban population growth in Yuyao mainly took place in Jiangnan. Accordingly, the population of Xiaoshan County in 1580 was around 50,000 inhabitants while those counties—Zhuji, Shangyu, Shengxian, and Xinchang—with a population of around 8,000 in Hongwu 24th year had an average population of 15,000 in 1580. This shows that Yuyao and Xiaoshan were large counties in Shaoxing Fu, while Zhuji and others small counties.

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

331

As for Jiaxing Fu, Vol. 11 of Chongde xian zhi (Records of Chongde County), recorded two fires in Wanli 17th and 35th year, in which over 200 and over 500 dwellings were burned down in Chengde County, respectively. As a result, Huang estimates that Chongde, with a population of 10,000 and a maximum of 2,000 households, represented the general size of a small county in Jiangnan. Reference could be found in the book, which describes how in Zhoushan, “6,000 troops and 10,000 citizens held the ground for over ten days before the county was captured” by the Qing army in Shunzhi 8th year (1651).2 The same method is applied to calculate the population of the counties in Wanli 8th year. First, the population of counties without county capital and the newly established counties in this area in Hongwu 24th year is set at 1,000. Then, the population of the county spun off after Hongwu 24th year is set at either the average or half the population of the counties in the same fu. In theory, the later a county was set up, the smaller its population, and vice versa. For example, in Hongwu 24th year, Hanzhong and Lintao, two prefectures in Shaanxi were sparsely populated. They had counties but no seat of government. So, their average population was set at 1,000 in 1580. The figure also applies to the three new counties established by Hanzhong fu. For example, in the mid-Ming Dynasty, Xi’an fu of Shaanxi spun off three counties—Sanshui (Xunyi), Shangnan, and Sanyang. The counties under Xi’an fu, such as Puzhou county3 had an average population of 5,000. Therefore, the population of Sanshui and two other newly established counties were set at 2,500. For instance, in Jiaxing fu, Zhejiang, Jiashan County was carved out in Xuande 5th year (1430) from Jiaxing County with its administrative center established in Wetang Town. Compared with Puyuan and Xinchen, Weitang Town was sure to have a population of 10,000 in 1580. According to the population growth rate, counties under Jiaxing fu had an average population of 9,000 in 1580. Both Pinghu and Tongxiang counties were carved out in the same year, and they both had the same population size. The Jiangxi scenario appears to be a little complicated. For instance, in Jianchang fu, the average population of counties was as large as 18,000, and it was inconceivable that the newly established Luxi County, which was 2 Wengzhou Laomin. (1985). Hai dong yi shi (Vol. 10) (p. 48). Selected historical materials of the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties. Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House. 3 A stele of Wanli 21st year (1593) inscribed the words in Wucheng county of Xi’an fu “There are about a thousand households. One or two out of ten engaged in agriculture, eight or nine in trade.” The population of the county is 5,000. Cf. Zhang, P. (2006). Diyu Huanjing Yu Shichang Kongjian–Ming Qing Shaanxi Quyu Shichang De Lishi Dilixue Yanjiu (Geographical environment and market space. A historical geographical research of the market in Shaanxi in the Ming and Qing Dynasties) (pp. 145–146). Beijing: The Commercial Press.

332

Chapter 12

situated in the remote mountainous area, had a population of 9,000. It would appear more appropriate to set its population at 3,000 like that of Guangxin and Raozhou fu s and at 5,000 in the case of Fuzhou fu’s newly established Dongxiang County. As for Changning and Dingnan, two counties spun off from Ganzhou fu, they belonged to the new counties in the “seat-free county” area, with an average population of only 1,000. When Qingliu and Yongding counties were spun off from Tingzhou fu, Fujian Province, in the Chenghua period (1465–1487), they had a population of 32,000 and 11,000, respectively. Assuming an average annual population growth rate of 4‰ and 3.9‰, their population should have increased to 49,000 and 16,000 respectively in 1580. Assuming the urban population was 8%, the two counties would have had an urban population of 4,000 and 1,000, respectively. Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded 56 li in Qingliu county and 19 li in Yongding, making it 75 li altogether. Zhangzhou fu set up five new counties with a total of 88 li and a total population of 6,000 at most. That is, 1,000 for each of the four, and 2,000 for Haicheng that had the biggest number of li. Therefore, the populations of counties in North China in 1580 are calculated as follows: 4,000 for Beiping and Shaanxi; 6,000 for Henan and Northern South Zhili; 7,000 for Shandong and Shanxi. In South China: 3,000 for Guangdong, 4,000 for Guangxi, 5,000 for Sichuan, 7,000 for Southern Huguang, 8,000 for Northern Huguang, 9,000 for Southern South Zhili, 10,000 for Jiangxi and Fujian, and 12,000 for Zhejiang. There are small differences in population figures between the provincial administrative districts in North China and bigger differences in South China, especially in Guangdong where the average population per county was only 3,000 resulting from the establishment of 20 new counties in the middle and late Ming Dynasty, most of which were in mountainous or sparsely populated areas. Besides, the difference in the population of counties between provincial-and-prefecture level administrative districts is also an interesting topic, which will not be elaborated here. 3

Capitals of Province, Prefecture, and County as Industrial and Commercial Centers

From Hongwu 26th year (1393) to Wanli 8th year (1580), the growth rate of general provincial capitals, prefectures, and county center areas was about the same as that of the urban population. However, the population growth rate of provincial capitals, prefectures, and county center areas considered industrial and commercial hotpots was much higher. As such, Nanjing and Suzhou might be exceptions: the population of Nanjing reduced because the capital

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

333

was relocated while Suzhou had a comparatively large population due to its large population size in the early Ming Dynasty. 3.1 Hangzhou and Guangzhou If Hangzhou City and Guangzhou City were considered as industrial and commercial centers rather than general capital cities, their average annual population growth rate, like that of Tianjin, Huai’an, Yangzhou, and Jiaxing, could be set at 7.4‰. That means in Wanli 8th year, Hangzhou and Guangzhou would have had an urban population of 385,000 and 452,000 respectively. 3.2 Tianjin In Yongle 2nd year, Zhuli made Tianjin the vital crosspoint of marine-river coordinated transportation. Furthermore, he ordered the establishment of “Tianjin Wei” (Defense of the Heavenly Ford), followed by “Tianjin Left Wei” and “Tianjin Right Wei,” as well as the construction of Wei city. The yamen (administration separtment) of three Wei was set up in the city while troops were stationed both in and outside the city. That means Tianjin city ought to be regarded as a prefecture-level city given that three Wei were stationed in one city like Ningxia Five Wei and Ganzhou Three Wei in the Hongwu period. In Yongle 6th year, the government shipped a total of 1.8 million dan (50Kg) of tribute rice to Beijing by water of which over 1 million dan were first unloaded and stocked in Tianjin only to be systematically shipped to Tongzhou and Beijing. Therefore, Tianjin Wei City emerged as a prime north-south grain transit and warehousing point in the Ming Dynasty.4 Tianjin was also an important salt hub in North China, where merchants came to trade salts. When Tianjin Wei was first founded, it was intended to be a key transit point for grain transportation by the Ming Government, but its size remained that of a ordinary city. With three Wei all in one city, the city wall was only nine-li long, just the size of a normal Jiangnan county. There were probably a total of over 50,000 soldiers and dependents in the Three Wei, though most of them were not stationed in the city. According to “He jian Records” cited in Vol. 11 of Tianjin xian zhi in the Qianlong period, there were about 10,000 soldiers defending Tianjin, hence a maximum of 30,000 people in the city and the suburb. The urban population should have been less than that figure. As the development of grain transportation by water increased and commerce boomed, the population of Tianjin continued to grow.

4 Guo, Y. (et al). (1989). The History of the Ancient Cities in Tianjin (p. 222). Tianjin: Tianjin Ancient Books Publishing House.

334

Chapter 12

During the Hongzhi period (1488–1505), Tianjin set up ten marketplaces, five of which were in the city, and the rest were located at the east and north gate along the river. There were always big crowds that hustled and bustled outside the north gate along the south canal. In Wanli 26th year (1598), Tianjin businessman Zhang Zihe teamed up with hundreds of citizens to wage an anti-tax battle against rising store rents. They received the support of thousands of citizens of Lingqing. With these events, it is estimated that there were at least 100,000 inhabitants in Tianjin City, making it equivalent to the scale of Huai’an fu. Suppose the military population was 25,000 together with their dependents in Tianjin Three Wei in Hongwu 26th year, the average annual population growth rate from Hongwu 23th year to Wanli 8th year should be 7.4‰. 3.3 Huai’an Huai’an fu was composed of the new city and the old city. Vol. 3 “City wall and moat” of Huai’an fu zhi (Records of Huai’an Fu) explains, under the article “New city,” that “There are ten thousand households in the city in the late Ming Dynasty.” This was the number of households in the new city. However, according to estimates, the whole city (including the old city and the joint city) was home to at least 20,000 households and a total of 100,000 residents. The population of Huai’an city did not just live in the city in the late Ming Dynasty. The above citation also claimed that in addition to the new city, an abundance of residents lived by the embankment, meaning the population of Huai’an city must have exceeded 100,000 in the late Ming Dynasty. The annual population growth rate from Hongwu 26th year to Wanli 8th year was 7.4‰, higher than the 6‰ of Huai’an fu in the Ming Dynasty. 3.4 Yangzhou According to Vol. 3 of Ming ji nan lue5 (History of Southern Ming), “480,000 ranges in Yangzhou were empty at this moment.” This is to illustrate the devastation caused by the Qing army that massacred residents of the conquered city. The population of Yangzhou, which was 100,000 in Hongwu 26th year, increased to 400,000 in Wanli 8th year, meaning there was an average annual population growth rate of 7.4‰. 3.5 Jiaxing According to the article “Sunzhimen tanpai ji” in Vol. 82 of Jiaxing fu zhi (Records of Jiaxing Fu), during the Guangxu period, Jiaxing fu had a total of 24 fang 5 Ming ji nan lue《明季南略》.

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

335

in and outside the city, including nine which were part of Jiaxing county and that had 6,950 households in early Wanli years. Huang estimates that Jiaxing fu had an urban population of 100,000, including a registered population of 24 fang and migrants. If the data is reliable, then the average annual population growth rate from Hongwu 24th year to Wanli 8th year ought to be about 7‰. Assuming that the average annual growth rate was 7.4‰, the total population ought to be approximately 107,000 in Wanli 8th year. 3.6 Songjiang It is recorded in Vol. 3 of Yun jian ju mu chao by Lian Fan that in Songjiang fu, “In the outskirts live more or less 10 li with no less than 200,000 men and women.” However, Huang believes that this population figures were beyond the scope of the urban area. The average annual population growth rate in Songjiang fu from Hongwu 26th year to 1580 was 3‰. The previous chapter has calculated that Songjiang fu had a population of 20,000 in 1393. Even at a comparatively higher average annual population growth rate of 6.5‰, the urban population would only have been 68,000 in 1580. 3.7 Shanghai Huang infers that Shanghai had an urban population of 100,000 in 1580 based on the number of households ranging from 25,000 to 30,000 in the late Ming Dynasty. 3.8 Yizhen Yizhen, bordered to the south by the Yangtze River and boasting a canal connecting Yangzhou, had always been the pivot of Huainan salt transportation. In the early Hongwu years, the Ming government established, in Guazhou, the Huainan Inspection Authority responsible for salt levies, which was subordinate to Huainan and Huaibei’s two Transportation Departments. Since then, Yizhen city has developed rapidly. According to the records of the Longqing period, “in the county live tens of thousands of households, but only two or three-tenths of which reside in the city.6” In Hongwu 24th year, there were 3,188 households and 16,649 people in Yizhen county. The county had 14 li, two of which were urban li. Based on the ratio, the number of registered urban population was only more than 2,000. Assuming there were 30,000 households with 150,000 people in Yizhen county in the late Ming Dynasty, its urban population would reach 40,000. 6 Yi wen kao. (Longqing period). In Yizhenxian zhi (Vol. 14).

336

Chapter 12

3.9 Jining According to Vol. ## of Yanzhou Fu Zhi (Records of Yanzhou Fu) in Wanli 1st year, Jiningzhou had jurisdiction over 52 tu, nine of which were in the city. This data was prior to the Wanli period but not in the Hongwu period. The grain transportation to the capital by canal resulted in the rise of Jining. In Wanli 37th year (1609), Jining city had a total of 8,240 ding.”7 The increase of “li (tu)” in Jining City was in line with its population growth. In Chongzhen 16th year, a big fire in Nanguan, the capital of Jijingzhou, burnt down “thousands of dwellings.”8 According to the census conducted in the Qianlong period, Nanguan in the Ming Dynasty, or Nanchen in the Qinglong period, had 5,254 households and an additional 4,917 in the outskirts. The fire in the late Chongzhen period destroyed thousands of houses in Nanguan alone. Fortunately, some of the houses, where an estimated 10,000 households lived, were unaffected. Together with the population of the outskirts, there should have been a total population of 100,000, or 20,000 households in Nanguan. 3.10 Linqing9 Linqing, in the northwest of Shandong Province, which was located at the north mouth of the Huitong River around the middle of the Jiangbei Canal, was the pivot for north-south transportation and westward transportation. It, therefore, developed into an important commercial center. In November of Xuande 10th year (1435), a local government official memorial to the emperor suggested that Linqing county had “no less than thousands of households” and proposed to build a city wall. The city wall was extended, in 1542 (Jiajing 21st year), to surround the city. It was 30 li, thereby making the area five times bigger than the original. The so-called “nearly a million population” of Linqing in the Wanli period might, therefore, be an exaggeration. A comparison of Linqing and Suzhou indicates that both cities were important industrial and commercial cities in the late Ming Dynasty. The city wall of Linqing was about two-thirds that of Suzhou. Does this suggest the population proportion was the same? The only difference is that an abundance of workers and merchants in Suzhou lived outside the city while most of the citizens in Linqing lived within the city. In the Wongwu period, about 300,000 residents lived in Suzhou city, so when the new city wall was constructed during the Jiajing period, the population of Linqing city might have been between 7 Jining zhilizhou zhi (Vol. 5) (The Qianlong period). 8 Yi wen zhi. (The Kangxi period). Jiningzhou zhi (Vol. 9). 9 Xu, T. (1986). The commerce of Lingqing in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Research on the Socioeconomic History of China, (2).

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

337

150,000, and 200,000 in the Wanli period. Linqing was the second biggest city in North China after Beijing. 3.11 Dezhou Dezhou had become an important storage center along the canal after the Yongle period. The development of grain transportation by water boosted urban commerce and population growth. From the names of marketplaces in Dezhou City, it is possible to tell that the commodities traded were mostly necessities for farmers, meaning they did not include the large variety compared with commodities traded in Linqing city. During the uprisings of Liu Liu and Liu Qi in Zhengde 5th year (1510), Ninghe, Prefect of Dezhou, failed to find enough young men to construct a new wall around the city wall, so he ordered rural residents to move into the city making it possible for, “women to live in the city, and young men to construct the wall in neighborhoods outside of the city gate for defense.”10 Dezhou city surprisingly had enough room to accommodate rural dwellers, an indication that the population was not dense. Based on Linqing city, it can be calculated that Dezhou was home to about 50,000 inhabitants in the late Ming Dynasty. 3.12 Tongzhou11 The opening of the Huitong River by Guo Jingshou in the Yuan Dynasty had shifted grain transportation from Tongzhou to Beijing from land to water. Therefore, Tongzhou city emerged as an important geographical location given that “Hedge was weaved into the city wall” in Tongzhou in the late Yuan Dynasty. In Hongwu 1st year, Xu Da led his army to stabilize Tongzhou and constructed the brick city wall that was 9 li and 13 steps long, three zhang and five chi high, including buttresses, four gates, and the scale comparable to a mid-Ming county in Jiangnan. Hence, Tongzhou became a storage center of great importance to the Ming government. In Zhengtong 14th year, a new city wall with a circumference of 7 li was suggested and then built to protect two warehouses. The total circumference of the new and old city walls of Tongzhou was 13.8 li. Assuming the population density of the new city was similar to that of the old city, Tongzhou might have had an urban population of nearly 100,000, calculated based on Linqing. It should be noted that in Appendix Table 6, the average population of counties has changed as a result of the incorporation of the populations of 10 Dezhou zhi (Vol. 2) (The Qianlong period). 11 Fu, C. (1985). The History of Chinese Canal Cities. Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House.

338

Chapter 12

prefectures and counties as industrial and commercial centers into that of counties. 4

Industrial and Commercial Cities and Towns

4.1 Large and Medium Cities and Towns In this section, medium cities were those with a population of over 5,000, and large cities were those with a population of over 10,000. Towns governed by two prefectures in Jiangnan, such as Wuqing town, which was under the jurisdiction of Jiaxing and Huzhou, are split into two to independently calculate their populations. For large towns, this chapter continues to estimate their populations based on historical data. 4.1.1 Yanshen Town, Anping Town, and Jingzhi Town Yanshen town of Qingzhou fu, Shandong Province, was abound in ceramics, coal, and glass and it had a stone city wall built in the Jiajing period. According to “Properties”, Vol. 8 of The General Records of Shandong compiled in the Jiajing period, “Its industrialists and merchants are on a par with those in Jingde Town located on the right of the river.” There were 100,000 residents in Jingde town, meaning there were at least 50,000 people in Yanshen town. According to Vol. 37 of Tushu bian (Collection of books with illustrations), Zhang Huang believed that Anping town (also known as Zhangqiu town) of Yanzhou fu, Shandong Province, had “no fewer than ten thousand households including scholars, farmers, artisans, and merchants.” Compared with Shengze town below, it had a total registered and floating population of at least 28,000. According to Vol. 3 of Zhu cheng xian zhi (Records of Zhucheng County) in the Wanli period, Jingzhi town of Qingzhou fu, Shandong Province, had “four to five thousand households, large enough to constitute a prominent town.” However, this information is not available in Dushi Fangyu Jiyao. What’s more, Vol. 171 of Daqing yitong zhi in the Jiaqing period only mentions it under the article “Jingzhi Town” as “having a soil city wall, with 40 to 50 households, where local magistrates of Laizhou were stationed in Wanli 7th year.” There is no mention of a large town or at least a town in the mid-Qing Dynasty. 4.1.2 Botou Town Vol. 7 “Feng tu zhi” (Natural conditions and social customs) of Hejian fu zhi in the Jiajing period describes the development of its commodity economy brought about by the opening of the canal. Vol. 1 of Renqiu xian zhi in the Wanli period regards Botou as a commodity distribution center with the same

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

339

importance as Tianjin. Botou Town was made Botou city in 1953 with a population of 28,000. The same year, Shengze town had a population of only 24,000, so it could be inferred that the population of Botou town might have reached 30,000 in 1580.12 4.1.3 Hankou Town, Liujiage Town, Zaojiao City, Sha City During the Chenghua period, the realignment of the Han River made Hankou in Hanyang fu a natural harbor that connected the Yangtze River. In addition, four new mills were set up. In Vol. 1 of Xu hankou congtan, Fan Kai wrote that, in the Wanli period, “Hankou has tens of thousands of households,” which is a five-digit scale. Accordingly, it should have a population of 28,000 inhabitants. Liujiage of Hanchuan County, Hanyang fu, had developed into a large town in the mid-Ming Dynasty. In his Liujiage xunjiansi ji, Li Chun claimed the size of the town was 6 li, with “tens of thousands of registered businesses,” yet still carefully recorded a total of 28,000 inhabitants. According to the description of the prosperity of Jingling county of Chengtian fu, or Zaojiao city of Mianyang District in the early Ming Dynasty, “it has nearly 3,000 households including every two households out of ten who are farmers and every eight merchants.”13 Therefore, the population is conservatively estimated to be 20,000. Liu Xianting claimed in Vol. 4 of Guangyang zaji that “Sha City of Jingzhou was extremely prosperous in the late Ming Dynasty. It had 99 lanes corresponding to 99 businesses  … Even today’s Jingshi and Gusu couldn’t 12 According to Vol. 9 of Huazhou zhi in the Longqing period, Liuzi Town, governed by Huazhou of Xi’an Prefecture, Shaanxi Province, “has thousands of blacksmiths,” and was world-famous for making knives, scissors, swords, and axes. Vol. 2 maintains that the town had thousands of households. Assuming it had 5,000 households, its population was 25,000. Vol. 9 also recorded that “At the foot of Nan Mountains stand hundreds of smelteries where thousands gathered to smelt silver, copper, and tin sand.” If there were every 20 workers for each of the 300 smelteries, that would be a total of 6,000 workers. An inclusion of suppliers of iron sand, charcoal, grain, and vegetables, and porters, as well as iron sand elutriators would certainly put the total population over 10,000. However, according to Huazhou zhi, artisans of Liuzi Town overcharged by the government went bankrupt and fled to the Three Bian area (Anbian, Dingbian, and Jingbian in Northwestern Shaanxi). Nevertheless, the iron smeltery cluster at the foot of Nan Mountains that were deemed distinct agricultural sidelines (See Cao Shuji and Jiang Qin: “Southern Zhejiang Rural Industry and Markets during the Qing Dynasty: Evidence Derived from the Iron Smelting Industry in Shicang Village”, Bulletin of IHP (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica) Volume, Part. 4, Vol. 81, 2010, pp. 833–888), do not qualify the definition of an industrial and commercial town in this section, which may be the reason why both regions are not included in Dushi Fangyu Jiyao. 13 Li, W. (Ming Dynasty). Epitaph of Liu chushi (scholars who had never been an officials). Dami shan fangji (Vol. 87).

340

Chapter 12

compete with it.” There is little doubt that this is an overstatement. It is certain that Sha city had a population of 25,000 in 1580. 4.1.4 Jingde Town, Zhangshu Town, and Hekou Town During the Chenghua period, Jingde Town was renowned for celadons given that it has flourished and become the official ware of the town. In the Jiajing period, Jingde Town had “a total population of about 100,000,” among which were tens of thousands of hired laborers in the ceramics industry. A conservative estimate of its population would be 100,000 in 1580. According to Wang Shixing, Zhangshu Town, in the Wanli period, was home to “tens of thousands of households, where goods from Jiangxi, Guangdong, and Guangxi provinces are traded and where medicinal materials from the north and south converged. It can, therefore, be considered a prominent town.” It should have a population of 50,000 with an estimated 10,000 households. In the Wanli period, Fei Yuanlu, a local scholar, wrote in Chaocai guan qing ke that “When my family moved to Hekou, there were only two and three households. Now that I am over 70 years, there are hundreds or thousands making this a city or a capital.” There were hundreds or thousands of stores with a population of 5,000. 4.1.5

Shengze Town, Tongli Town, Lili Town, Zhenze Town, Pingwang Town, and Xinhang Town According to Vol. 1 of Wujiang xian zhi (Records of Wujiang County), in the Jiajing period, Shengze Town had only a hundred households. However, Vol. 18 of Xing shi heng yan recorded hundreds and thousands of stores trading silk on both banks of the city river, which is testimony of the professional silk industry in the Wanli and Tianqi periods. According to Vol. 1 of Wujiang xian zhi in the Kangxi period, “Merchants flock and over ten thousand residents live here.” However, a closer look shows those “over ten thousand residents” lived in the region centering on Shengze where there were just 4,000 households including 17,000 residents in Kangxi 9th year (1744).14 Assuming that the non-registered population in the town included servants, manual laborers, and shop assistants made up 40% of the total population, there would have been only approximately 28,000 inhabitants in the city. That means Shengze Town ought to have had a population of 20,000 in 1580. According to Vol. 1 of Wujiang xian zhi in the Jiangjin period, Tongli Town had 2,000 households and a registered population of about 10,000. Vol. 2 of Lili zhi (Recordss of Lili) in the Jiaqing period recorded over 2,000 households and 14 You, H. & Cao, S. (2006). The population of Jiangnan cities since the mid Qing Dynasty. Researches in Chinese Economic History. (3), 124–134.

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

341

“its commodity trade is comparable to that of a city”, meaning its registered population might have reached 10,000. If 40% of the total population was non-registered, then the total population of each town should have been about 17,000. The book also mentions that the three towns of Zhenze, Pingwang, and Xinhang each had over a thousand households. Vol. 1 of Pingwang zhi (Recordss of Pingwang) in the Daodang period recorded that “In the early Ming Dynasty, there are hundreds and thousands of households, and the trade of goods is on a par with a small city.” Yet the town had declined after the Japanese invasion and rose again only after the Wanli period. The three towns each had an average registered population of 5,000 with a 20% non-registered population bringing the total to 6,000. According to Wujiang xian zhi, edited in the Jiajing period, Meiyan had over 500 households, and Bachi and Shuangyang 300 each. For their part, Duncun and Tanqiu each had several hundreds and Yanmu had over 200. However, none but Meiyan could be considered a town by strict standards, neither could counties in Changshu County with over 300 households including Xipu, Xujia, Tangshi, and Guijiang that are not found in Dushi dangyu jiyao. 4.1.6 Meili Town, Fushan Town, Shatou City, and Zhitang City Similar cities and towns can also be found in Changshu county of Suzhou fu. For instance, according to Meili zhi: xu (Recordss of Meili: Preface) in the Jiaqing period, Meili town “became prosperous in the mid Ming Dynasty and people became affluent.” Also, according to Vol. 2 of Changshu xian zhi (Records of Changshu County) in the Jiajing period, “there were about 2,000 households” in the town. Likewise, Fushan town is described as “such a large town as having about 2,000 households” whereas Shatou city and Zhitang city of the same county also had “2,000 households” each. Together with the floating population, the total population of each town may have been 17,000. 4.1.7

Wunijing Town, Fengjing Town, Zhujing Town, Beiqibao Town, Sanlintang Town, and Xinchang Town Based on Songjiang fu zhi (Records of Songjiang Fu) in the Zhengdu period and other local chronicles in the Ming Dynasty, Fan selects the above 6, out of the 27 towns of Songjiang fu as representatives.15 The six towns are all recorded in Dushi fangyu jiyao and the first four are even recorded in Daqing yitong zhi. Without specific population data in any historical reference, it would be

15 Fan, S. (2005). Cities and Towns in Jiangnan: The Transformation of Tradition. Shanghai: Fudan University Publishing House.

342

Chapter 12

appropriate to assign them a population of 12,000. This also holds true for Shimen and Weitang of Jiaxing fu. 4.1.8

Puyuan Town, Xincheng Town, Wangjiangjing Town, Shendang Town, Shimen Town, and Weitang Town Based on several local Records, Fan believes that Puyuan town and Xinchang town of Jiaxing county, Jiaxing fu, Zhejiang Province, each had “tens of thousands of households.” Based on the above, it is possible to set their population at 28,000 each. If Wangjiangjing town had over 7,000 households with a population of 20,000, then Shimen town, with “thousands of households,” should have a similar registered population. In Appendix Table 4, Shimen and Weitang are both counted as counties with a population of 10,000 each. Including the non-registered floating population could bring the total population to 12,000. For its part, Shendang town had “500 to 600 shops,” with a registered and total population of about 5,000 and 6,000. 4.1.9 Chang’an Town and Xiashi Town Chang’an town and Xiashi town were subordinate to Haining county of Hangzhou fu. It could be inferred that each of them had a population of 12,000, similar to that of Shimen and Weitang towns. 4.1.10

Xinshi Town, Wuqing Town, Nanxun Town, Linghu Town, and Shuanglin Town Xinshi town, governed by Deqing county of Huzhou fu, with its nearly 10,000 households was the capital of Deqing county. Based on the estimates above, its population would be set at 28,000 while the population of other large towns including Wuqing town, Nanxun town, Linghu town, and Shuanglin town, might be the same or close to that of Xinshi. 4.1.11 Foshan Town According to Vol. 129 “Jian zhi” of A General Record of Guangdong in the Daoguang period, the Wudoukou Inspection Department was set up in Foshan town in Jingtai 3rd year of the Ming Dynasty, an illustration of the importance of Foshan. In fact, Foshan was not located at crosspoints, nor did it hold any key pass. Its unique geographical edge was its close proximity to Guangzhou. Judging by this, the establishment of the Inspection Department should not have targeted pirates or mountain people, rather diverse merchants and vendors inhabiting here. During the Zhengtong period, Vol. 6 of Heyuan xianshi jiapu (Xian Family Genealogy) maintains that the town was as densely

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

343

populated as Guangzhou,16 a seeming exaggeration. Compared with Shengze and other towns, Foshan might have had a population of 20,000 inhabitants. 4.2 General Cities and Towns: North Zhili Given that it is impossible to estimate the population of thousands of general cities and towns, a special approach is needed for that purpose. In this section, a database method is applied to achieve this goal. Based on Dushi fangyu jiyao, Xu Panqing has referred to Zhongguo gujin diming dacidian (Dictionary of Chinese Ancient and Present Toponyms) by Zang Lihe, Zhongguo lishi diming dacidian (Dictionary of Chinese Historical Toponyms) by Shi Weile, and Zhongguo lishi ditu ji (Historical Atlas of China) edited by Tan Qixiang to compile a special database which is referred to as Xu Panqing’s Database of Cities and Towns. Excluding those towns with unreliable sources and county towns, there are approximately 1,014 evidenced Ming “towns.” However, there are a total of 1,053, given that an additional 39 cities and towns are unavailable in the books. Apart from specific records of commerce such as “merchants converge,” what else can be applied to determine industrial and commercial cities and towns? According to the definition cited in this book, the designation of “cities” or “towns” is not applied to those villages bearing the name of “cities” or “towns” with a tiny population of only several hundreds of people; those with a large population of over a thousand but with marketplaces that are open only at specific times; or military fortresses or guard posts. This begs the question: with very limited historical data, how is it possible to tell whether or not a town matches the definition of an industrial and commercial city or town? Scholars generally consider “towns” recorded in prefectural “Mountain pass” of Daqing yitong zhi (including Qianlong and Jiaqing versions) as industrial and commercial cities and towns. By comparing Xu Panqing’s Database of Cities and Towns and towns recorded in Daqing yitong zhi, this section finds that some “towns” in the Ming Dynasty remained “towns” in the Qing Dynasty, evidence of the fact that these Ming “towns” were truly industrial and commercial cities and towns. If Ming “towns” are no longer found in Daqing yitong zhi, nor in the local Records of the same period, they are not considered industrial and commercial cities and towns. This approach may filter out potential targets but it keeps the most faithful ones. To sum up, cities and towns that appear twice in three literature match the definition. 16

Luo Yixing. (1985). On the capital of Foshan merchants in Ming and Qing Dynasties. Social Science of Guangdong. (3), (p. 66).

344

Chapter 12

Apart from recording town names and business conditions, Daqing yitong zhi in the Qianlong period also described “xunsi” (Inspection Department). The inspection department was a public security agency in the county, and it was mainly stationed at mountain passes and busy traffic junctions where merchants often flocked. For example, in Guangzhou and Zhaoqing fu s, all “towns” in the Ming Dynasty were places where inspection departments were stationed in the Qing Dynasty. Daqing yitong zhi edited n the Qianlong period was written in 1778 (Qinglong 43rd year), and the one in the Jiaqing period was written in 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year). The latter is included in the basic database of ancient books for full-text research through which town names mentioned in other geographical section of the book can be retrieved. For instance, in the section of “Jinliang (Bridges)” in Vol. 163 of “Ji’nan fu”, “Liujiaqiao was located at the southwest of West Yan’an town, Qidong count, spanning the Bashui river.” The above “Yan’an town” is not found in Section “Mountain Pass” but it is listed in Dushi fangyu jiyao (Essentials of Historical Geography). The record of Dushi fangyu jiyao makes reference to seven “towns” in Beiping fu, but only Huanghua and Songcheng towns are included in Daqing yitong zhi. Lutai town is also seen in the latter: “Lutai Salt Bureau was established between Yuan 1st and 19th year; Lutaichang and xunsi were also set up in the Ming Dynasty. Xunsi been downsized in the early Qing Dynasty and was reestablished today.” Lutai Town or Lutaichang, related to the salt industry, was highly likely to be an industrial and commercial city or town. Therefore, though not found in the Ming literature Dushi fangyu jiyao (Essentials of Historical Geography), it was listed in this section as a town. In Hejian fu, Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded 28 towns, among which only 13 towns including Huaizhen and Botou are found in Daqing yitong zhi. It remains unsure whether the 13 towns remained towns in the Ming Dynasty. Interestingly, Shangjialin, known as the “tourist destination”; Manhe town, known as the “south-north pivot;” Maoshi town, where “merchants converge;” as well as Liuzhimiao town, where “merchants and travellers gather” in the Qing Dynasty, are not recorded in the Ming Dynasty. Only Botou town, where “merchants crowd around,” is recorded in Dushi fangyu jiyao. No doubt it was the most prosperous town with the largest population in Hejian fu. With the listing of Botou town as a large town, there are 12 general cities and towns left. Similar situation won’t be explained here. Under the article “Gaochuan Town,” Daqing yitong zhi also quotes 10 towns listed in Jinshi: dili zhi and claims that among ten towns, none but Liujie and Huai towns survived, the other eight having been abolished. This means data of a considerable number of towns in Dushi fangyu jiyao are borrowed and those towns may not, in fact, qualify as industrial and commercial cities and towns.

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

345

Daming fu, with the Wei River as an important tributary of the Grand Canal, had a booming commerce. Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded 12 towns, including Xiaotan and Huilong, among which seven towns including Xia tan, Huilong, Ligu, Beigao, Shuangjing, Shakou, and Dagang are documented in Daqing yitong zhi. Vol. 1 “Towns” of Daming fu zhi in the Zhengde period recorded as many as 38 towns (an impressive number), 13 of which had their commercial situation documented. Among the 13 towns, Shuguan Town and Guding Town are found in Daqing yitong zhi but not in Dushi fangyu jiyao. For example, Shuguan was the “gathering place for merchants,” and Guding, “commonly known as Small Chaozhou where merchants flocked.” Besides, Laoan and Xin towns are found in Dushi fangyu jiyao but not in Daqing yitong zhi. Lijiadaokou town, Aijiakou town, Tianshi town, and Dingluan town all had their commerce condition recorded. Despite their absence in Dushi fangyu jiyao and Daqing yitong zhi, they could be added to the database. Wuqiang town was the administrative center of Wuqiang County, so it does not qualify here. Therefore, there should be a total of 15 general commercial towns in Daming fu. Yongping Fu had no towns in the Qing Dynasty but it had two towns in the Ming Dynasty. One of the towns was Lulong Town, where the county seat of Lulong was located. It was a city-free prefectural capital with less than a thousand civilians and large numbers of the military. It was changed to a “town” in the late Ming Dynasty meaning that the civilian population had grown and commercial activities had increased. The other town, located in Funing County, was Qianmin (migrant) Town. The name of the town itself indicates the presence of a large number of immigrants, meaning that it could not be considered a commercial town. The population of the northern towns in the Ming Dynasty can be inferred from North Zhili. Lijiadaokou Town in the Daming fu “is located at the east bank of the Wei River where hundreds of households resided and merchants gathered.” It is estimated that it had a population of about 2000 in some 400 households, or no fewer than 1,000 if there were not that many households. Regarding the strict selection criteria for towns in the Ming Dynasty, the population of each town could be set at 2,000, but this could only be applied to Daming and Hejian fu s along the canal. In other places in North China, the average population of general towns could only be set at 1,000. 4.3 General Cities and Towns: South Zhili Cities and towns in South Zhili are very complicated to discuss. Dushi fangyu jiyao (Essentials of Historical Geography) recorded 19 towns in Yingtian fu, 14 of which are listed in and 36 towns in Suzhou fu, with only 26 listed in Daqing yitong zhi. Some famous towns such as Lili, Qiandun and Zhenru are recorded in the local Records but are not found in Daqing yitong zhi, while some towns

346

Chapter 12

and inspection departments such as Guangfu, Zhouzhuang and Shengze are recorded in Daqing yitong zhi but are not found in Dushi fangyu jiyao. This inconsistency in denoting towns is also true in Yangzhou Fu. Guazhou, Shaobo, and Hai’an, listed in the Daqing yitong zhi as Inspection Departments, are not included in the section of Cities & Towns in Dushi fangyu jiyao, but are randomly listed in other sections. Fan follows the records in Gusu zhi, in the Zhengde period, to screen the list of towns in Suzhi and other fu s in the Ming Dynasty. Based on this information, Huang recently wrote an article that revisits the topic. This section continues as follows: Wu County had one city and six towns. Daqing yitong zhi in the Qianlong period recorded the three towns of Hengtang, Hengjin, and Mudu, as well as, the Inspection Department of Guangfu Town. Nevertheless, Dushi fangyu jiyao listed none but Mudu Town based on a seemingly higher criteria. “Therefore, even to this day, it remains one of the biggest towns in Wu County.” Changzhou county had five cities and three towns. Except for Xushi Town (also known as Xushu) and Puli Town (Luzhi), the other five cities and one town are not found in Daqing yitong zhi. Only Chenmu Town is listed in Dushi fangyu jiyao (Essentials of Historical Geography). This means that the two books only record three towns and no cities. That means “City” has not been recognized by the authors of the two books as “town.” Kunshan County had four cities and five towns. The five towns including Siqiao, Shipu, Anting, and Penglang were all included in Daqing yitong zhi in the Qianlong period, and Qiuxu in Daqing yitong zhi in the Jiaqing period. Except for Penglang, the other four towns are also listed in Dushi fangyu jiyao. Despite records of the commerce describing Banshanqiao City as “Residents converge and markets open from morning to night,” it is not included in either book. The same is true for the other three cities. Changshu County had nine cities and five towns, among which the capital cities of the county and Changshu town were either inside the county or the administrative center, so they are ruled out in our discussion. Therefore, eight cities and four towns meet the requirement. In Tang City, “there were about three to four households and commercial trading ships (between China and foreign countries).” Although the largest “city” might have had a population of 2,000, generally speaking, a “city” was not a “town.” Fushan, Xupu, Meili, and Qing’an are all found in Daqing yitong zhi, but surprisingly, Fushan, the largest area, is not listed in Dushi fangyu jiyao. Wujiang County had three cities and four towns. Except for the capital city of the county, there were two cities of Jiangnan and Xinhang and four towns, Tongli, Lili, Pingwang, and Zhenze. The above four towns are all included in

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

347

Dushi fangyu jiyao, while Pingwang and Zhenze only appear in the List of Inspection Departments in Daqing yitong zhi. It is clear that their absence is an obvious omission. Jiading County had nine cities and eight towns, including cities inside Taichangzhou. Among the eight towns, six of them including Nanxiang, Luodian, Dachang, Jiangwan, Anting, and Gaoqiao are found in Daqing yitong zhi, while five towns except Gaoqiao are found in Dushi fangyu jiyao, together with Huangdu Town and Gelong town. Taicangzhou had ten cities and four towns. The four towns of Shuangfeng, Shatou, Xin’an, and Xijing are all listed in Daqing yitong zhi, and, except for Xin’an, are equally all listed in Dushi fangyu jiyao. In addition, Huangjing, Xinshi, and Tusong cities are found in Daqing yitong zhi, while both Huangjing and Xinshi are shown as towns while Tusong remains a city. In Dushi fangyu jiyao, both Tusong and Gancao cities are listed as towns. The above discussion leads to the following conclusion: first, most of the “cities” recorded in Gusu zhi in the Zhengdu period, except those with descriptions of commerce, did not meet the requirement of an industrial and commercial city or town. Second, there are different criteria for determining towns in Gusu zhi in the Zhengde period and in Dushi fangyu jiyao (Essentials of Historical Geography). The differences may have resulted from changes in town size at different times, i.e., except for large ones, towns wane and wax alternately. Third, Gusu zhi in the Zhengde period listed 39 towns and cities with commercials records, 28 of which are also recorded in Dushi fangyu jiyao which also holds a record of 37 towns, the same number as in Gusu zhi. Together withFushan and Shengze town, there should be 39 industrial and commercial cities and towns in Suzhi fu in the Ming Dynasty. That means, despite omissions of several large towns of Suzhou fu, Dushi fangyu jiyao has a fairly complete record. This could simplify the discussion of industrial and commercial cities and towns of Songjiang fu. Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded 24 towns governed by Songjiang, 17 of which are found in Daqing yitong zhi. Of the other seven towns, four are seen in the Fan’s list of cities and towns based on local Records. That means, despite certain inconsistencies in the 27 towns listed by Fan and towns recorded in Dushi Fangyu Jiao, the numbers of cities and towns roughly match. The latter recorded 6 large towns and 18 general cities and towns. According to Daqing yitong zhi edited in the reign of Qianlong, Chuanshabao “produced salt and brought together merchants.” In the mid Jiajing period of the Ming Dynasty, “the city wall that had a circumference of 4 li was built and it was equipped with four gates where officers and soldiers were quartered.” Since then, it has become a big town where the Inspection Department of Nanqiang

348

Chapter 12

was once established.” So, it should be a large town that was omitted in Dushi fangyu jiyao. Therefore, all the cities of Yangzhou, Jiangning, Zhenjiang, Changzhou, Suzhou, and Songjiang prefectures in North Zhili recorded in Dushi fangyu jiyao are accounted for. This statistical caliber only applies to prefectures in northern Jingshi and Zhejiang Provinces. In Yangzhou fu of northern South Zhili, Jiangnan, and Zhejiang, the population of general cities and towns is calculated at 2,000. In Huai’an fu of northern South Zhili, Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded 33 towns, 15 of which are not found in Daqing yitong zhi. According to Vol. 1 of Haizhou zhi in the reign of Longqing, “Haizhou comprised of vast lands abounds with brigands making it possible for ten clustered households to form to form a town,” even though in name only. According to Vol. 1 of Wangjiangxian zhi in the Wanli period, in Anqing fu, seven towns, including Leilang, Yangwan, Xiangcao, Jishui, Sujiazui, Xingou and Daigou had 70 to 80, or up to 100 households. In fall and winter, people arrived by boat to privately sell fishery salt. This was not considered real business. Leigang, Jishui, Yangwan, and Xiangcao are found in Daqing yitong zhi, while Jishui and Yangwan also found in Dushi fangyu jiyao. Apparently, this type of “towns” in Anqing fu do not meet the requirement. If the size of a “town” cannot be determined, then the average population of each town is considered to be 1,000. General Cities and Towns: Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong Provinces Zhejiang Fan Shuzhi has found, from local Records, an abundance of cities and towns in Hangzhou fu, but more cities than towns. There were Linping and Tangxi towns outside the prefectural capital city, Chang’an and Xiashi towns in Haining County, and 18 towns in Yuhang, Lin’an, Xincheng, and Changhua counties, whose names are not enumerated here. Linping City used to be prosperous when the canal ran through it, but after the canal was realigned to go through Tangxi, Tangx boomed and Linping declined. That explains why Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded Tangxi instead of Linping, which is only listed in Daqing yitong zhi. Besides Chang’an and Xiashi, Dushi fangyu jiyao (Essentials of Historical Geography) also recorded 11 general small towns, 8 of which are found in Daqing yitong zhi. However, among the 18 towns of Yuhang and other counties, only 4 of them are found in Dushi fangyu jiyao including 2 that are found in Daqing yitong zhi. This shows that despite the changes that small towns went through, their total number remained stable. A marketplace is needed for a place to boom.

4.4

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

349

In Jiaxing fu, Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded 10 towns excluding Weitang Town and Haining Town as the administrative center of the county and Qing Town whose population is merged with that of Wu Town. Unfortunately, none of the large towns of Jiaxing fu mentioned in the previous section including Wangdian, Xincheng, Puyuan, and Shendang towns, is listed. However, the situation in Huzhou was different. Only 13 towns are recorded in Dushi fangyu jiyao though, 5 large towns, including Xinshi, Nanxun, Wuzhen, Linghu, and Shuanglin are all included. 4.4.1 Fujian Vol. 14–15 of A General Record of Bamin (the Eight Min {Fujian}) in the reign of Emperor Hongzhi facilitates the discussion of “cities” and xu (country fairs) in the prefectures of Fujian. Excluding prefectural capital cities, “cities” that were administrative center of the county and “cities” outside the city gate, five coastal prefectures of Fujian Province had a total of 16 cites with an even larger number of cities in mountainous areas. Most of the 16 coastal cities were trade points as ports, including Niushitou City and Jinggang City in Fuqing County where foreign commercial ships gathered, and Hantou City in Putian County where fish and salt were traded and where merchants converged. The cities in mountainous areas were more of a county fair. They included Jiangkou city and Huitan city in Jianyang County with “gatherings on the 4th and 9th of each month.” The coastal Zhangzhou fu also had mountainous areas with county fairs. For example, Taoyuan City of Zhangping County had “gatherings on 1st and 6th of each month.” For the purpose of this book, no further explanation will be provided here. Dushi fangyu jiyao only recorded two of the five coastal prefectures—Haikou city of Fuzhou fu and Hantou city of Xinghua fu—as “towns,” which means that which means the appellation “towns” does not completely rule out “cities,” rather, it considers large cities as towns. According to A General Record of Bamin, Huangshi Town of Putian county “had over a thousand households, most of which read … Though not a big commercial town for merchants, it boasts of flourishing business and a notable settlement in Putian.” This undoubtedly shows that it was an agricultural settlement. Daqing yitong zhi still listed and recorded it as a city. Likewise, Shijijin City of Funingzhou was renamed Fuxijin City rather than a “town”. Other cities are found in Daqing yitong zhi meaning that “cities” recorded in A General Record of Bamin are not regarded as industrial and commercial cities and towns either. Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded a total of 51 towns, 42 of which are in A General Record of Bamin including only 10 of which are recorded as “towns,” 24 are

350

Chapter 12

recorded as inspection departments, 1 as a river department, and 2 as pu (post). Apparently, towns recorded in Dushi fangyu jiyao are administrative, residential areas. How is Masha Town, the famous capital of books, recorded in the three writings? According to Vol. 14 “Geography” and Vol. 25 “Food” of A General Record of Bamin, Masha Town, renowned for mimeographing low-end popular books in the Song and Yuan dynasties, was ruined the war by the end of Yuan. However, in a linear distance of 10 kilometers, Chonghuali Book Fair thrived and never declined. Nevertheless, Vol. 10 of Jianning fu zhi in the Jiajing period maintained that, “Chonghuali book fair opens on the 1st and 6th of each month.” Despite its flourishing mimeography, it was just a fair, which explains why Chonghuali Book Fair is not listed as a “town” in Dushi fangyu jiyao. According to Vol. 431 of Daqing yitong zhi, “BookFair Street was located at Chonghuali, 30 li west of Jianyang County where most of the world’s books came from and business travelers converged.” In the Qing Dynasty, Chonghuali Bookstore Street still failed to be named a “town.” Similarly, Vol. ## of Jianjing fu zhi in the Jiajing period claimed that “Masha Street was under the jurisdiction of Yongzhongli.” After the decline of its mimeography, Masha maintained some commercial activities because it was located on a transportation line—which is, currently, still a national highway. That explains why explains why is it listed by Dushi fangyu jiyao as a “town.” Therefore, it is believed that the prefectural towns of Fujian Province recorded in the book are, in fact, industrial and commercial towns. Large “cities” in A General Record of Bamin, including the above-mentioned two towns, as well as Luoyangkou Town and Renshou Town in Yanping Fu were also recorded as “towns” in the book. Unlike Jiangnan and North China, industrial and commercial cities and towns in Fujian were often where inspection departments were stationed. Similarly, places located at traffic intersections with hoards of travelers always become industrial and commercial towns. After deducting the 5 towns not recorded in either A General Record of Bamin or Daqing yitong zhi (Comprehensive Geography of Great Qing Dynasty) and including Chonghuali Book Fair, Fujian Province had a total of 47 towns. Therefore, it would be logical to set the population per town at 2,000. 4.4.2 Guangdong Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded six towns in Guangzhou fu but left out Fushan Town. Just like in Zhaoqing fu, the six towns were all recorded as inspection departments in Daqing yitong zhi. Towns in other prefectures were also places where inspection departments were stationed. This shows that industrial and commercial cities and towns could be found in places where inspection departments of Guangdong Province were located in the late Ming Dynasty.

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty

351

4.5 General Cities and Towns: Huguang Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded nine towns in Wuchang fu—Huhuangzhou, Sanjiangkou, Baihu, Wuchang, Paizhou, Yanglou, Huangsangkou, Jinniu, and Huarong. Apart from Sanjiangkou, Wuchang, Paizhou, and Jinniu, Huguang tujing zhishu (“Huguang Provincial Maps and Records”) in the Jiajing period recorded another seven towns—Jinkou, Nianyukou, Shitoukou, Chituji, Jinzijin, Taiping, and Daoshifu. Except for Wuchang and Jinniu, 9 out of a total 11 towns were also inspection department stations. Huguang tujing zhishu recorded a total of 12 inspection departments, of which only 3 department stations including Huhuangzhou, Fuchi, and Huangsangkou were not listed as towns. At the same time, Huhuang and Huangsang were considered towns in Dushi fangyu jiyao, and Fuchi is also recorded as a town in Daqing yitong zhi. Furthermore, except Jinniu, the eight towns recorded in Dushi fangyu jiyao all appear in Daqing yitong zhi. That is to say, despite some inconsistencies between the towns recorded in Dushi fangyu jiyao and those in Huguang tujing zhishu, there appears to be general consensus that Wuhang fu, in the late Ming Dynasty, had nine towns. Neither Dushi fangyu jiyao nor Huguang tujing zhishu (“Huguang Provincial Maps and Records”) recorded Hankou Town in Hanyang Fu, but the latter included the Inspection Department of Hankou Town and four other towns, including the inspection departments of Caidian Town, Xintan Town, and Bairenji which appear as “towns” in the former. In any case, Hankou Town should be indisputably listed as a town. No records were found for Zengshan Town, so it is not included. It should be noted that Hanyang Fu, Vol. 3 of Huguang tujing zhishu details the prosperity of Liujiage Town which is recorded as Liujiage Inspection Department in Daqing yitong zhi. So, it is a significant error that Dushi fangyu jiyao does not list it as a town. Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded 15 towns in Huangzhou Fu, 10 of which were inspection departments in Huguang tujing zhishu. The latter recorded a total of 12 inspection departments, of which 11 are described as “town”, indicating that they are mainly towns in nature. Though Huguang tujing zhishu only recorded seven towns and only four are available in Dushi fangyu jiyao, which is believed to be comparatively more credible and comprehensive. Besides, among the 15 towns recorded in Dushi fangyu jiyao, 3 are not mentioned in Daqing yitong zhi, and 2 are recorded as inspection departments in Huguang tujing zhishu. The other town named Shuangcheng Town has no other record. Therefore, it is determined that Huangzhou Fu has 11 towns. Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded 11 towns in De’an fu, 6 of them including Gaoqiao, Xing’an, Qishan, Taiping, Xiaohexi, and Maxihe are inspection departments or towns in Huguang tujing zhishu. The latter recorded a total of 12 inspection departments and towns, almost the same as the total number recorded

352

Chapter 12

in Dushi fangyu jiyao. Nevertheless, only 5 of the 11 towns, including Gaoqiao, Xing’an, Qishan, Tangcheng, and Taiping that are in Dushi fangyu jiyao are available in Daqing yitong zhi, while Tangcheng is not included in Huguang tujing zhishu. Therefore, it is determined that De’an fu has 6 towns. Dushi fangyu jiyao recorded 6 towns in Jingzhou fu, 4 of which are inspection departments in Huguang tujing zhishu. Seven towns recorded in the latter are not mentioned in Dushi fangyu jiyao. In addition, among the six towns in Dushi fangyu jiyao, only Yaoqi Town is listed in Daqing yitong zhi. Sha City, the famous industrial and commercial city, is not even found in Dushi fangyu jiayo, rather, it is listed as an inspection department in Huguang tujing zhishu. Therefore, it is determined that Jingzhou fu has four towns. A summary of the relations between towns and inspection departments in Huguang could be drawn without detailing each and every prefecture. The inspection department was an administrative body in charge of regional public security, often established at highly populated passes and intersections. So, towns in Dushi fangyu jiyao only included some inspection departments. Among the inspection departments recorded in Huguang tujing zhishu, only those that meet the requirement of industrial cities and towns are recorded as towns in Dushi fangyu jiyao. 5

Summary

Map 15 shows the distribution of cities and towns across the country in 1580, leading to two conclusions. First, Western China almost had no cities or towns except for Sichuan Province. Second, cities and towns were most densely distributed in Jiangnan, which was incongruent with the prefectural urbanization level at the same period. See Map 16. Map 16 shows that Shuntian, Hejian, Dongchang, Yangzhou, Suzhou, and Hangzhou had the highest urbanization rate in Wanli 8th year, followed by Guangzhou and Chengdu. Political cities centering around Beijing and cities along the Grand Canal, which guaranteed the fiscal supply of Beijing and the Ming Empire, were most densely populated. China’s urbanization rate rose from 8% to 10.4% from Hongwu 26th year (1393) to Wanli 8th year. Thanks to Beijing’s huge urban population, the population of North Zhili was as high as 20% of the total population. Shandong also registered an urbanization rate of nearly 15% due to the rise in the number of industrial and commercial cities. Despite great development in industrial and commercial cities and towns, Southern Jingshi, with its large population, had an urbanization rate of less than 13%, which notably also included the military population.

Map 15

Distribution of prefectural cities and towns in 1580

Map 16

Prefectural urbanization level in 1580

355

The Urban Population in the Late Ming Dynasty Table 19

Province

Provincial urban population and urbanization rate in China in Wanli 8th year. Population unit: 1,000

Total Urban population population County Prefecture Towns Cities

Beiping 8,611 Shandong 13,066 Shaanxi 8,266 Henan 10,667 Shanxi 9,950 Southern Jingshi 18,567 Northern Jingshi 10,907 Jiangxi 16,129 Southern 7,701 Huguang Northern 9,239 Huguang Fujian 7,686 Zhejiang 20,952 Guangdong 8,303 Guangxi 3,952 Sichuan 5,151 Total 159,147

Urbanization Number rate (%) of cities and towns

493 914 197 427 362 396 244 480 297

1,179 169 360 337 254 1,559 790 479 275

92 819 18 32 17 438 92 300 41

1,764 1,902 575 796 633 2,393 1126 1,259 613

20.5 14.6 7.0 7.5 6.4 12.9 10.3 7.8 8.0

36 41 18 32 17 128 92 53 41

333

378

144

855

9.3

43

460 607 215 134 242 5,801

358 811 766 192 279 8,186

94 912 335 1,753 65 1046 25 351 35 556 2,547 16,534

11.9 8.4 12.6 8.9 10.8 10.4

47 70 46 25 35 724

Note: The population of general towns was 2,000 in regions including Hejian Fu and Daming Fu along the Grand Canal in North Zhili, Yangzhou Fu in Northern Jingshi, fus in Southern Jingzhi, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Jiangxi provinces; the rest was set at 1,000. Source: Appendix 4

Chapter 13

The Urban Population in Northern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty From the middle to the end of the Qing Dynasty to 1949, different regions went through wars, famine, and different levels of industrialization and commercialization. Therefore, a special approach is needed to estimate the urban population at different periods, given that available records serve different purposes. This chapter and the next utilize three approaches to estimate the urban population in the mid-Qing Dynasty, given that unlike for the late Ming Dynasty and 1949, there are nearly no records available upon which to base our analyses. Therefore: 1) With regard to prefectural and county capitals that were in close proximity or were similar to other places described in existing literature, we computed their population based on the total population, transportation mode, and commercial activities of other places. 2)  With regard to the number of cities and towns, we based our estimates on the Qianlong and Jiaqing versions of Daqing yitong zhi and other local Records. Apart from large towns, the population of each town is quantified based on the rank of the region to which it belonged. 3) With regard to the urban population, we estimated the population of counties in the mid-Qing Dynasty based on that population figures of 1919. The prefectural urban population drawn from the above three approaches is called the “empirical population.” Chapter 15 and 16 apply empirical research and mathematical modelling to reconstruct the urban population of counties in China as a way of determining the prefectural urban population. The research also elaborates the regional quantitative relation between the urban population of a prefecture and its total population in 1910. It shows that in a region with no modern industry, commerce, and transportation, the urban population of a prefecture was subject to its total population. In fact, the more populated the prefecture, the larger the urban population. Assuming this was also the case in 1776, the relational model of the urban population of a prefecture and its total population in 1910 can serve as a basis to estimate the prefectural urban population in 1776. This result is called “Model Estimates.” The “revised population” is available when the “empirical population” and the “Model Estimates” are compared and the more logical option is utilized. It should be noted that the 1910 model already takes into consideration the population of towns, so the population of small towns is not included in the

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_014

The Urban Population in Northern China

357

estimation. However, large and medium cities and towns with highly developed commerce are often excluded in the 1910 model. Therefore, it is necessary to include them using “Model Estimates.” 1

Shandong

Xu Tan (1998) has made significant accomplishments in her research of the commodity economy history in Shandong in the Ming and Qing Dynasties by pursuing relevant materials.1 It is relevant to state that this chapter furthers Xu’s research. 1.1 Empirical Research on the Urban Population 1.1.1 The Capital of Jinan Province Volume 3 of Licheng County Zhi in 1773 (Qianlong 38th year) detailed the number of households in urban and suburban Jinan. In urban Jinan, there were a total of 600 pai, 6,000 households, and 26,000 inhabitants; in areas close to the city wall, there were 612 pai, 6,000 households, but only 23,000 inhabitants. The area near the city wall included “streets outside the four gates and villages near the city wall,” which were also known as the outskirts. Therefore, Jinan ought to have had an urban population of nearly 50,000. 1.1.2 The Capital of Jining According to Volume 2 of Jining Zhou Zhi in the Qianlong period, there were 21,000 households and 100,000 inhabitants midway in the Qianlong Dynasty. Merchant households were probably not taken into account because most merchants did not acquire local citizenship. According to Volume 4 of Jining Zhili Zhou Zhi in the Qianlong period, “over 10,000 households lived here like schools of fish; over 10,000 merchant households converged here following on each other’s heels.” Therefore, the city ought to have had at least 40,000 households and a population of approximately 200,000. 1.1.3 The Capital of Linqing According to Volume 6 of Guantao County Zhi in the Guangxu period, in a document submitted to the emperor, the county applied for well-distributed salt banknotes, claiming that “Joined by two rivers, Linqing was inhabited by diverse communities that amounted to 100,000 residents in the city.” That 1 Xu, T. (1998). Research on Commodity Economy in Shandong in the Ming and Qing Dynasties (pp. 225–244). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

358

Chapter 13

indicates a population of 100,000. That article was written in the early Kangxi years when Linqing’s economy had not fully recovered. The estimated urban population of Linqing, like that of Jining, could be 200,000 in the late Qianlong period, the same as that in the late Ming Dynasty. 1.1.4 The Capital of Tai’an Fu Xu Tan (1998) believes that at least “thousands of households” lived outside the west city gate in the Qianlong period. She puts the population of the capital of Tai’an between four and five thousand households, or about 25,000 inhabitants. 1.1.5 The Capital of Dongchang Fu Two stele inscriptions in the Jiaqing and Daoguang periods indicated that Liaocheng had 363 business establishments in Shanxi and Shaanxi. Because of this, Tan Xu deduced that there were at least 500 commercial stores or more in the city. The above document submitted by Guantao County to apply for salt banknotes in the early Kangxi years also claimed that there were “no fewer than 10,000 residents” in Liaocheng and near its east city gate. So, its population could be set at 50,000. Located at the bank of the Grand Canal, the capital of Dongchang Prefecture was full of freight and merchants from all over the country. 1.1.6 The Capital of Yanzhou Fu Far away from traffic arteries, the capital of Yanzhou Prefecture had an apparently small population. Despite missing some of its parts, a household register of Ziyang County during the Tongzhi and Guangxi periods recorded family members and occupations of 688 households that lived on the 17 streets of Ziyang. These 688 households probably made up one-fourth or one-fifth of the total population. That means there were probably 3,000 households and 15,000 inhabitants in Ziyang. That means back in the Qianlong period, the urban population of Ziyang would have probably only been 12,000. 1.1.7 The Population of Other Prefectural Capitals With reference to Chapter 12 and the prefecture-level urban population in 1910 as outlined in Appendix Table 8, it can be deduced that the population of the capital of Qingzhou Prefecture and that of the capital of Tai’an Prefecture were both 29,000 inhabitants respectively, so their population could be both set at 25,000 in 1776. For its part, the capital city of Wuding had a population of 14,000 in 1910, i.e. half that of the capital of Tai’an, so its population could be set at 12,000 in 1776. The population of the capitals of Caozhou and Dengzhou prefectures was 12,000 respectively in 1910, the same as that of Yanzhou. The

The Urban Population in Northern China

359

population of the capitals of Laizhou and Yizhou both reached 55,000 in 1910, so they could be set at 40,000 in 1776. 1.1.8 The Capital of Dong’a County According to Volume 2 of Dong’a County Zhi in the Daoguang period, there were more than 20 streets across Dong’a County. “On the half-a-li-long street near the south city gate lived hundreds of households.” About the same number of inhabitants lived near the southeast city gate—“near the east gate lived more than a hundred households.” The west gate alone “was sparsely populated because it bordered on mountain roads.” That means that there were at least 700 to 800 households living near the city gates of Dong’a County. The households that lived in the city would bring the number to at least 1,500 households, meaning the urban population would have been 7,000. Back in the Qianlong periods, this population figure would have been 6,000. 1.1.9 The Capital of Shanghe County According to Volume 3 of Shanghe County Zhi in the Daoguang period, the capital of Shanghe County, Wuding Prefecture, had a total of 685 households with 3,321 inhabitants living in the city and near the four city gates in the Daoguang period. This small urban population resulted from its underdeveloped economy. For example, the capital only paid 2.35 liang out of a total of 40 liang of commodity tax across the county, even lower than five other marketplaces. Therefore, back in the Qianlong period, its population would probably have been 3,000. 1.1.10 The Capital of Jimo County The records of Volume 5 of Jimo County Zhi in the Tongzhi period indicate that there were 2,078 households and a population of over 10,000 in the capital city and its surroundings near the city gates. Therefore, Jimo County ought to have been a large capital city with a population of 8,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) if the calculation is based on an average annual population rate of 3‰. 1.1.11 The Urban Population of Other Counties According to XuTan (2007), the population of county capitals, including Dezhou, Huangxian, Weixian, Boshan, and Jiaozhou was similar to that of Jimo. How then can the population of county capitals of Shandong prefectures be estimated? In 1910, the urban population of the counties of Laizhou Prefecture reached 41,000; that of the counties of Jinan, Yizhou, Dengzhou, and Caozhou prefectures was between 23,000 and 26,000 each; Qingzhou and Yanzhou had a population between 18,000 and 20,000 each; Tai’an had 15,000

360

Chapter 13

each; and Dongchang, Linqing, Jining, Wuding and others had between 10,000 to 12,000 inhabitants. The previous paragraphs indicated that in Qingzhou fu, the capitals of Jimo, Jiaozhou, and Boshan counties had an average population of 11,000, so the average population of the county capitals of Qingzhou and Yanzhou fu in 1776 would have been 11,000. As for the capitals of Jinan, Yizhou, Dengzhou, and Caozhou fu, the population figure would have been 13,000. For the capitals of Dongchang, Linqing, Jining, and Wuding prefectures, the population would have been 6,000. See Appendix Table 9 for the urban population of the county capitals in 1910. The rest of the information is not provided here in detail. 1.1.12 Anping Town Anping town, also known as Zhangqiu town, was located at the bank of the canal in Shouzhang county, Yanzhou Prefecture. It was a three-county junction connecting San’e, Yanggu, and Shouzhang counties and transforming the area into the biggest regional commodity center. In Volume 37 of Tushu Bian, Zhang Huang maintains that “scholars, farmers, artisans, and merchants converged and no fewer than ten thousand households lived here.” Basing our estimation on Chapter 12, the total population would have been between 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. If the figure remained unchanged in the Qianlong period, then its population would be similar to that of Liaocheng and Tai’an. 1.1.13 Yutai and Other Medium Towns Xu also listed Guting town, Yutai county, as home to “over a thousand households on both banks of the Tiao River;” Echeng town, Yanggu county, as home to “over a thousand households on both banks;” and Luqiao Town, Jining, as where “a dense population lived and merchants converged.” That means there were at least 600 to 800 households living in the above towns, and over a thousand if the floating merchant population was included. That means there were about 5,000 people per town on average. In Changshan County of Jining Prefecture, Zhoucun Town that prospered in the late Qianlong period ought to have been listed as a medium town, despite being unavailable in Daqing Yitong Zhi in the Qianlong period.2 Section “Pass” of Daqing Yitong zhi in the Jiaqing period had some records of towns. In the records of Hebei, Shandong, and Henan provinces, there were some descriptions indicating that a town had a booming commerce where “residents prospered and merchants converged … a land-water center where 2 Xu, T. (2008). On the Commerce of Zhoucun Town in Shandong Province in the Qing Dynasty. Journal of Historical Science, (8), 103–108.

The Urban Population in Northern China

361

freight flocked … or … a trading hub.” Therefore, Cong Hanxiang believes that towns with these depictions were truly commercial towns. Daqing Yitong Zhi in the Qianlong period recorded the same information. Towns described in the Jiaqing and Qianlong versions did have some differences, albeit few. Apart from that, the Jiaqing version documented more inspection departments than the Qianlong version. This chapter adopts the Jiaqing version (unless otherwise specified) of Daqing Yitong Zhi to make the year 1776 demarkation line of town development. Inspection departments of some areas were also seen as towns when they were associated with the words “streets”, “lanes” and “towns” in the Jiaqing version. For instance, in Shandong, towns that had their commercial activities recorded included Panshui town, Liubu town, and Yantou town in Jinan fu; Guxian town, Qingshui town, Sinvshui town in Dongchang fu; Nanyang town and Guting town in Jining zhou; Haichangkou town in Laizhou fu; and Tangquan town in Dengzhou fu. There are certain inconsistencies between the records of Daqing Yitong Zhi and local Records. Cong (1995) also points out that the South Guantao town of Dongchang fu had long been a water-land pivot and a conversion and transportation hub for grain in Shandong, but is unavailable in Daqing Yitong Zhi.3 1.1.14 Other Small Towns Xu (2008) believes that the number of small commercial towns in Shandong varied from over ten to one or two. That has caused estimation difficulties. Towns without commercial activities that were recorded in Daqing yitong zhi were probably small towns. A count in the books indicates that Shandong had 83 small towns—a number below Xu’s (2008) estimation given there was less than 1 town for each county. Therefore, the population of each small town is set at 2,000. Inspection department stations in Shandong should have also been small towns. For example, Jinan Prefecture had only 1 inspection department at Longshan Town but it had 19 more towns. Qingzhou fu, likewise, had only 1 inspection department but 20 more towns. Therefore, it is apparent that inspection department stations were equally viewed as towns. For its part, Qingzhou Prefecture had the Guantai Field, saltworks in other words, and in the coastal Wuding fu, areas including Qingzhou had 3 saltworks. Therefore, by this book’s definition, saltworks that brought together salt workers and salt

3 Cong, H. (Ed.). (1995). Modern Village Administration in Hebei, Shandong, and Henan (pp. 119–208). Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House.

362

Chapter 13

merchants should have equally been considered as industrial and commercial towns. 1.2 Empirical Population and Model Estimates Chapter 15 proves that the urban population of a county (Y) in Shandong in 1915 was determined by its total population (X) at a time there were no expectation for the province to modernize transportation. In Shandong Province, this relation is Y = 0.05X + 2.3(R2 = 0.6432) and this equation is applicable to the rest of north China. The converted model, which can be successfully applied to Zhili, Henan, Shanxi, and Shaanxi in North China, is capable of analyzing a wide range of data. Its range of application extends from counties to prefectures, thereby making it possible to establish the relation between the urban population of a prefecture and its total population. As a province only governed a few or a dozen prefectures, the Hebei-Shandong-Henan urban population model and the Shanxi-Shaanxi urban population model have been created, respectively. The two North China models have significant differences with the models of South China, while the Shanxi-Shaanxi model is similar to the Sichuan model. The Hebei-Shandong-Henan model alone is independent. After excluding Jinan, Dengzhou, and Laizhou prefectures, the relation between the urban population of each prefecture in Shandong and the total population in 1910 is calculated using as follows: Y  =  0.0352X  +  36.21 (R2  =  0.7952)—very close to the Hebei-Shandong-Henan model of Y  =  0.0406X  +  22.411 (R2 = 0.826). The empirical population and Model Estimates of Shandong are listed in Table 20. See previous paragraphs on how to calculate the empirical population and the Model Estimates outlined in Table 20. Here, we simply provide details about the models. A comparison of the two sets of data reveals the “difference rate” (absolute values): the greater the difference rate, the less rate of match of the two data. In most Chinese provinces, the empirical population is always larger than the Model Estimates in prefectures where the provincial capital is located, except prefectures where the fuguo county (a county with the capital located in the walled city of its superior) was located. As for ordinary prefectures, Jining and Linqing had the biggest difference rate given that the urban population of both prefectures was 200,000 in 1776 when the canal economy was in its prime but declined after 1910. For its part, based on the modelling, the densely populated Caozhou Prefecture had a consistently large urban population which should have been small instead. Therefore, empirical data was applied in the revised population of Jinan, Jining, Linqing, and Caozhou prefectures, while the model data was applied to the rest of the prefectures. In total, Shandong had an urban population of 1.885 million in 1776.

363

The Urban Population in Northern China Table 20

Prefectural urban population of Shandong in 1776 (/1,000)

Prefecture

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference rate (%)

Revised population

Jinan Prefecture Qingzhou Prefecture Dengzhou Prefecture Dongchang Prefecture Laizhou Prefecture Yizhou Prefecture Linqingzhou Jiningzhou Yanzhou Prefecture Caozhou Prefecture Wuding Prefecture Tai’an Prefecture

288 177 144 130 174 155 228 249 94 84 104 87

160 141 138 86 139 159 70 63 115 132 102 111

44.4 20.4 4.1 33.8 20.0 2.7 69.5 74.7 22.6 57.3 1.6 27.4

288 141 138 130 139 159 228 249 115 84 102 111

2

Zhili

2.1 Empirical Research on the Urban Population 2.1.1 Beijing and Tianjin According to Han Guanghui (1996)’s research, Beijing had an urban population of 987,000 in 1781 (Qianlong 46th year).4 Jinmen baojia tushuo (Images and Illustration of baojia in Tianjin) in the Daoguang period recorded a population of nearly 200,000 in the neighborhoods outside the Tianjin’s city wall. Therefore, during the Qianlong period, the unregistered merchant population would have certainly brought the registered urban population of Tianjin to 200,000 at least. The Capital of Baoding Fu 2.1.2 Qingyuanan was the fuguo county of Baoding Prefecture and as recorded in Volume 2 of Qingyuan County Record during the Republic of China, the census indicated there were 10,100 households and 66,000 inhabitants living within the city and its neighborhoods around the four city gates in 1873 (Tongzhi 12th year). Until 1932, the suburban population shrank while the rural population grew. The decrease in the urban population of Baoding was 4 Han, G. (1996). Geohistorical population of Beijing (p. 128). Beijing: Peking University Press.

364

Chapter 13

because of the demotion of its administrative rank. The provincial capital of Hebei that used to be based in Baoding in the Qing Dynasty was relocated to Tianjin after 1911. Though the Baoding government was then established, it was soon abandoned leaving behind only the Qingyuan government and a police station. Baoding was demoted by two administrative ranks to “almost a county.” Given these events, the urban population of Baoding would probably have been 50,000 during the Qianlong period. 2.1.3 The Capital of Chengde Prefecture In 1778 (Qianlong 43rd year) when Chengde Prefecture was established, its population had already reached half a million. Therefore, Chengde City had naturally emerged as the administrative center. Also, as the summer resort for the Qing court, it thrived for decades. Certainly, its population would be similar to that of an ordinary capital city, that is 40,000 inhabitants. 2.1.4 The Capital of Xuanhua Fu In the Ming Dynasty, soldiers and their families were the major inhabitants in Xuanhua fu, where the military station was located. In the Qing Dynasty, wei was turned into county and Xuanhua fu was created. When the baojia system was still mere formality in most regions, Xuanhua fu had already begun conducting a census. Volume 10 of Xuanhua Fu Zhi had detailed records of the registered households and the population of counties governed by the prefecture. It is said that “Xuanhua county had 7,735 registered households, 9,669 ding, and 12,130 kou living within the city and the neighborhoods outside of the city gates.” Given that the data came from the baojia investigation, ding here should mean a man and kou a woman. The prefecture had a total urban population of 76,000 and a rural population of 475,000 across its 11 counties—that is a total of 551,000 inhabitants. With 38,000 inhabitants, the capital of Xuanhua Prefecture had the largest revised population. Xuanhua Town in the Ming Dynasty was a military stronghold that brought together many garrisons and floating merchants. Its military status weakened after the Qing Dynasty, but it remained important in the trade between China and Mongolia and between China and Russia. The population of Xuanhua town was probably 40,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 2.1.5 The Population of Other Prefectural Capitals Xuanhua fu had an urban population of 100,000 in 1910, the same population as the capitals of Chengde and Baoding fu. In the paragraphs above, we have determined that the population in the capitals of Xuanhua, Chengdu, and Baoding in 1776 was the same, meaning that the population of counties in 1776

The Urban Population in Northern China

365

can be computed based on population of prefectural capitals in 1910. Given that counties including Yongping, Yi, Zunhua, Zhao, Ding, Shen, Ji, Hejian, Guangping, and Daping were either prefectural or district capitals, they should have had a larger population than ordinary counties. However, their population, which was between 4,000 to 21,000 in 1910, fails to indicate any growth between 1776 and 1910. Therefore, the population in 1910 is considered identical to that in 1776. For details, see Table 8. 2.1.6 Chicheng and Nine Other County Capitals Large county capitals including Weizhou (sharing the same capital with Wei county), Xi’ning, and Bao’an had a population of about 10,000 inhabitants, while ordinary county capitals had a population of only 3,000, and large and small counties 6,000 on average. Therefore, excluding population of prefectural capitals, the population of these ten counties was 60,000 in 1776. 2.1.7 The Urban Population of Other Counties Excluding prefectural capitals, county capitals in Xuanhua Prefecture had an average population of 6,000 in 1776, that is, half the population of 1910. That means the average annual population rate was 5.2‰ between these 134 years. In fact, a more appropriate rate would be between 3‰ and 4‰ and the population would have been 1.7 times larger. However, for prefectures including Yizhou, Zhaozhou, Dingzhou, Shenzhou, and Shunde, whose average urban population per county was only between 4,000 and 7,000, their population should be stable from 1776 to 1910 while the population of the remaining prefectures set at 1.7 times higher in 1910 than in 1776. See Appendix Table 7 for more data. 2.1.8 Commercial Towns Volume 40 of A General Record of Jifu that was written in 1778 (Qianlong 43rd year) described “towns” of Shuntian, Yongping, Baoding, Hejian, and Tianjin prefectures, and Volume 41 described “towns” of Zhengding, Shunde, Guangping, Daming, Xuanhua, Jizhou, and Yizhou prefectures. The records were almost the same as those in the Qianlong version of Daqing Yitong Zhi—a version we have adopted, in this section, as the main source of data. A General Record of Jifu described most towns in the format: “(Shuntian fu) Bei’an town was located 50 li southeast of Yongqing County.” Others were described in the format: “Shengfang Town, 70 li northeast of Wenan County, was home to tens of thousands of households. Thousands of ships come and go during trade time.” That means Shengfang town was equivalent to a large town in Shandong Province, while towns without booming commerce are

366

Chapter 13

considered medium towns. For instance, Manhe Town, Hejian Prefecture is described as “a north-south pivot where merchants converged.” Daqing yitong zhi in the Qianlong period contained no information about inspection departments of Zhili. It was recorded in the Jiaqing version that Caiyu Inspection Department, located in the southeast of Daqing County, was “home to thousands of households and was the capital of Qifu,” making it a seemingly large industrial and commercial town. Unfortunately, this information is not available anywhere in the Qianlong version. Volume 7 of the Qianlong version wrote, with respect to “Zhangqingkou,” that “Standing erect on rivers, it [Zhangqingkou] emerged as the most prosperous go-to hub for ships and merchants in Baoding county.” This expression is the single record about towns in section “Pass,” according to which Zhangqingkou replaces Caiyu as the commercial town. As such, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), there were 145 towns and 148 countylevel administrative districts in Zhili, meaning there was one town for each county. In Hejian fu and Tianjin fu, however, each county governed nearly three towns on average. That is because areas through which the Grand Canal ran had booming commerce and, therefore, more towns. 2.2 The Empirical Population and Model Estimates Except for Shuntian, Tianjin, Xuanhua, and Baoding, the relationship between the urban population of each county in Zhili and 1910 population was as calculated as Y = 0.044X + 8.31 (R2 = 0.8676)—close to the Hebei-Shandong-Henan model of Y = 0.0406X + 22.411 (R2 = 0.826). See Table 21 for the empirical population and Model Estimates of Zhili. Table 21

Prefectural urban population of Zhili in 1776. Unit: 1,000 people

Prefecture

Empirical population

Model population

Difference rate (%)

Revised population

Shuntian Fu Xuanhua Fu Yongping Fu Baoding Fu Yizhou Zunhuazhou Zhaozhou Dingzhou Shenzhou Jizhou

1179 100 64 145 23 33 39 35 34 38

190 37 72 92 25 33 38 33 29 37

83.9 63.1 11.2 36.3 7.6 1.1 2.6 6.7 14.6 3.9

1179 100 64 145 23 33 39 35 34 38

367

The Urban Population in Northern China Table 21

Prefectural urban population of Zhili in 1776. Unit: 1,000 people (cont.)

Prefecture

Tianjin Fu Hejian Fu Zhengding Fu Shunde Fu Guangping Fu Daming Fu Chengde Fu Zhangjiakou, Dushikou, and Dolon Nor

Empirical population 239 112 120 72 46 98 91 0

Model population 67 65 84 42 52 83 31 14

Difference rate (%) 71.9 41.8 29.8 42.1 11.9 15.0 65.9

Revised population 239 112 120 72 46 98 91 14

A comparison of the empirical and model urban population in Zhili in 1776, with the exclusion of Shuntian, Xuanhua, and Tianjin prefectures, reveals two sets of significantly different data with regard to Hejian Prefecture, on which the canal had a considerable impact, and Chengde, the summer resort for the Qing court. In other words, Hejian and Chengde were more flourishing in 1776 than in 1910. Apart from Zhangjiakou, Dushikou, and Dolon Nor, empirical data was applied to all prefectures, including Baoding and Shunde, despite an absence of a logical explanation of their significant data differences. The prefectural population was 2.484 million in total. 3

Henan

3.1 Empirical Research on the Urban Population 3.1.1 Kaifeng Biancheng choufang wulan (A Biancheng Organization and Defence Guide) recorded that the urban population of Kaifeng’s nine yu (village) in 1861 (Xianfeng 10th year) was 93,000. Given that the Yellow River flooded through Kaifeng and cut its population in 1841 (Daoguang 21st year), its urban population in 1776 could be set at 100,000, that is about half the population of 1910.5

5 Compilation committee of Records of Kaifeng. (1996). Kaifeng shi Zhi (Records of Kaifeng) (1) (p. 397). Kaifeng: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. The book claims that Kaifeng

368

Chapter 13

3.1.2 The Capital of Henan Prefecture Xu (2003) conjectures that the population of Luoyang was about 75,000, based on the amount of silver that was donated by the merchants from Luzhou and Zezhou of Shanxi towards the construction of Shanxi-Shaanxi Guild Hall in 1756 (Qianlong 21st year). Luoyang was also an important commercial town, and a significant amount of cotton cloth, silks and satins, tobacco, and medicinal materials were transited from there to Shaanxi and Gansu. In the Daoguang period, there were over a thousand shops in the city which continued to expand alongside its urban population.6 3.1.3 The Capital of Guangshan County It was recorded in Volume 1 of Guangshan County Zhi Yuegao (Manuscripts of Records of Guangshan County) in the era of the Republic of China that there were 937 households and 4,039 residents in the east, west, south, and north streets as well as in the south neighborhood outside of the city gate in 1784 (Qianlong 49th year). The Capital of Lushan County 3.1.4 According to Volume 10 of Lushan County Zhi in the Jiaqing period, there were 16 bao, 72 jia, 698 households, and 4,000 inhabitants in Lushan county. 3.1.5 Other Prefectures and Counties It is feasible to set the urban population of Ruzhou and Nanyang prefectures in 1910 at 1.7 times bigger than the population of 1776. Huangchuan, the capital of Guangzhou had a huge population in 1776, presumably resulting from its status as the commercial center bordering Hubei, Anhui, and Henan and as the trade hub of the three provinces. Therefore, it is appropriate to set its population in 1776 at the same level as the population in 1910. As the rest of the prefectural capitals usually had a small population, we determine that their population figures in 1776 and 1710 are identical. For prefectures whose average urban population per county was above 10,000 inhabitants in 1910 including Zhangdu, Runing, and Nanyang but except Guangzhou, we determine that their population in 1776 was also the same as the population in 1910.

had a population of 122,000 in 1751 (Qianlong 16th year), but this is a doubtful figure because it is drawn from an unknown source. 6 Xu, T. (2003). Commerce in Luoyajng in the Mid Qing Dynasty—An investigation centering on inscriptions of Shanshaan Guild Hall, Journal of Tianjin Normal University, (4), 43–47.

The Urban Population in Northern China

369

3.1.6 Commercial Towns According to Daqing Yitong Zhi, the inspection department was stationed in Zhuxian Town while Zhuxian Town, Foshan in Guangdong, Hankou in Huguang, and Jingde Town in Jiangxi were named the “four biggest towns in China” in the Qianlong period. Xu (2003) cited the research done by the locals stating that at its prime, Zhuxian Town had an area of 120 square li, that is, 30 square kilometers. Jiang Weitao (2015) studied the relation between the surface area of a town in Jiangnan and its population density by mapping on a scale of 1:100,000 according to the era of the Republic of China. He finds after excluding cities that had too much open ground in the urban area that there were about 6,000 people in every square kilometer in the least populated city in Jiangnan.7 If we assume that Zhujian Town had the same density in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), then it would have had a population of 180,000 people. However, it ceased to flourish, and the urban population plummeted after the Daoguang period because navigation was made difficult when the Jialu River was silted up. Despite that, Zhujian Town was populated enough to be listed as one of the central cities in China around 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). Zhoukou Town of Chenzhou Prefecture is not available in Daqing Yitong Zhi. According to Volume 1 of Shangshui County Zhi in the Qianlong period, “It was a crowd-gathering place, where a criss-cross of streets extended to the border of Huaining, connecting Yongning Marketplace. Home to over 10 li, it was bordered on three sides by rivers. Boats and vehicles converged in this town where tens of thousands of households resided. It was one of the largest cities in Henan Province.” The town had 15 li and an area of nearly four square kilometers, that is, about 22.2% the size of Zhuxian town. Given the population density, it ought to have had a population of around 24,000. Xu Tan (2003) cites Shangshui County Zhi in the Qianlong period maintaining that Zhoujiakou (including Yongning Marketplace) had 3,000 households with 15,000 residents in the early Qianlong years.8 Therefore, it was possible that up until 1776, Zhoukou town had a population of 24,000 inhabitants. Xu Tan (2003) concludes based on the records that there were 1,500 to 2,000 commercial stores across the town by 1838 (Daoguang 18th year). This means Zhoukou

7 Jiang, W. (2015). Estimate of urban population of Jiangnan in the Republic of China period based on topographic maps and GIS. Researches in Chinese Economic History. (4), 39–56. 8 Xu, T. (2003). Zhoukou, an important commercial town in Henan in the Qing Dynasty—A case analysis on commercial towns of Henan during the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Journal of Chinese Historical Studies, (1), 131–143.

370

Chapter 13

Town should have reached its prime in the Daoguang period rather than the Qianlong period. 3.2 Empirical Population and Model Estimates With the exception of Kaifeng fu and Guide fu, the relation between the urban population of a prefecture in Henan and its total population in 1910 was obtained using the formular: Y = 0.0375X + 36.201 (R2 = 0.826)—close to the Hebei-Shandong-Henan model of Y =  0.0406X  +  22.411 (R2  =  0.826). See Table 22 for the empirical population and model estimates. In Zhangde, Weihui, Ruzhou, and Nanyang, the model estimates was almost the same as the empirical population. The result in Kaifeng, Henan, and Guide prefectures differed most significantly because for Kaifeng and Henan, they respectively governed Kaifeng and Luoyang, two of the largest cities in Henan, while Guide governed many important agricultural counties. Xiazhou, whose model estimates were far higher than the empirical, was the only region whose figures were hard to justify. The whole province, meanwhile, had an urban population of 1.524 million in 1776. Table 22

Prefectural urban population of Henan in 1776 (/1,000)

Prefecture

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference rate (%)

Revised population

Zhangde Prefecture Weihui Prefecture Huaiqing Prefecture Kaifeng Prefecture Henan Prefecture Guide Prefecture Chenzhou Prefecture Xuzhou Ruzhou Xiahzou Runing Prefecture Guangzhou Prefecture Nanyang Prefecture

76 93 78 415 166 57 94 69 57 31 105 96 186

76 92 93 148 97 143 107 77 61 51 133 104 174

0 0.6 19.6 64.4 41.7 150.9 13.9 11.0 6.2 65.2 26.6 8.6 6.7

76 93 78 415 166 57 94 69 57 31 105 96 186

The Urban Population in Northern China

4

371

Shanxi

4.1 Empirical Research on the Urban Population 4.1.1 Taiyuan It was impossible to find any information related to the urban population of Taiyuan. In the following paragraphs, it is explained that the capital of Datong had a population of 30,000 in the Qianlong period. So, based on this figure, the population of the capital of Taiyuan, which was also the provincial capital of Shanxi, is estimated to have been 50,000 in the Qianlong period. This figure is reasonable given that the population figure was 80,000 in 1910. 4.1.2 The Capital of Datong Fu According to Volume 9 of Datong County Zhi in the Daoguang period, there were 7,054 native households and 35,345 native inhabitants living in the county capital of Datong which was also the prefectural capital of Datong. That means there was an average of 5 people per household—a fairly accurate number. It is believed that the urban population would have been as low as 30,000 in the Qianlong period. 4.1.3 Jiangzhou City In Volume 4 of Zhili Jiangzhou Zhi, it was recorded in the Qianlong period that there were 3,665 households and 13,283 inhabitants in “four fangs across the city.” The capital of Jiangzhou had a population of merely 3,000 in 1910 because of the famine of the Guangxu period. That explains why the population of Puzhou, Jiezhou, and Jiangzhou is each set at 12,000 for the year 1776. 4.1.4 Other Prefectural Capitals The capitals of Pingyang and Zezhou had a population of 11,000 and 14,000 in 1910, respectively, presumably because they suffered less damage in or recovered quickly from the famine. Therefore, we set their population at 12,000 each in 1776. Despite being devastated, Zeping had a smaller population loss because it put great effort into disaster relief. Given that it had a population of 23,000 people in 1910, the population in 1776 ought to be set at 20,000. The same should apply to Lu’an Prefecture that had a population in 1910 of 40,000 with an average annual growth rate of 4‰. That means in 1776, its population would have been 24,000. Fenzhou and Guisui, for their parts, had an urban population of 66,000 and 77,000 in 1910 respectively, so their urban population should be set at 39,000 and 45,000 in 1776 given that they were commercially developed.

372

Chapter 13

Huozhou was hard hit by the famine leading to a huge population loss. The population of its capital and the average population of its county capitals were 4,000 and 3,000 in 1910 respectively, so we set the two at 5,000 and 4,000 in 1776. The population of Xizhou’s capital and the average population of its county capitals was 1,000 in 1910, but it ought to have remained unchanged in 1776 because of its remoteness. The population ranged from 3,000 to 6,000 people in the capitals of Ningwu, Liaozhou, Baode, and Xinzhou that were remote, and the less damaged Xinzhou, Daizhou and Shuoping prefectures in 1910. Likewise, their population figure should remain the same in 1776. Migration and further development in Inner Mongolia contributed to a large urban population of 77,000 in Guisui in 1910. Although Guisui established its status as a grain transit as early as 1776, it was not as flourished as in 1910. Therefore, its urban population is set at 10,000. 4.1.5 The Capital of Wenxi County According to the census in Volume 3 of Wenxi County Zhi in 1765 (Qianlong 30th year), there were 1,513 households and 7,035 inhabitants in 1763 (Qianlong 28th year). 4.1.6 The Capital of Jishan County According to Volume 2 of Jishan County Zhi in the Tongzhi period, Jishan County of Jiangzhou had a total of 1,542 households and 7,387 inhabitants “within the city,” averaging 4.8 people per household in 1766 (Qianlong 31st year) just like in the capital of Wenxi. 4.1.7 The Capital of Xiangning County According to Volume 4 of Xiangning County Zhi in the Republic of China period, Xiangning County of Pingyang Prefecture had a total of 819 households “in the urban and suburban areas” and 7,799 men “in their adulthood and teens” in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year). The county averaged as many as 9.5 people (excluding women) per household—extremely unreliable figures. The population of the capital of Xiangning County was probably 8,000. 4.1.8 The Capital of Pinglu County It was recorded in Volume 4 of Pinglu County Zhi in the Republic of China period that Pinglu county of Jiezhou had a total of 623 households and 4,169 inhabitants “within the city” in 1764 (Qianlong 29th year). This number appears to have accounted for the ding population rather than the population of both genders.

The Urban Population in Northern China

373

4.1.9 The Capital of Qinshuihe Ting Tingshuihe Ting was one of the six Guisui Ting, located to the north of the Outer Great Wall. According to Volume 14 of Qingshuihe Ting Zhi in the Guangxu period, 3,000 people lived on the “street,” meaning this was the size of an ordinary county capital in the north of the Great Wall in Xuanhua Prefecture. 4.1.10 Other County Capitals Located at South Jindong and governed by Pingyang Prefecture, the capitals of Wenxi and three more counties had an average population of 7,000 in the Ming Dynasty. So, the population of the county capitals in Xinzhou and Daizhou is set at 5,000 each. However, the situation of Fenzhou is a little different. The population of each of its county capitals reached 27,000 in 1910, meaning the 1776 population figure should be set at 10,000. The population of the county capitals in prefectures having over 12,000 people would be set at 7,000 albeit with the exclusion of Datong and Guisui. The population of the county capitals of the two and the rest of the prefectures would be set at 2,000. Ordinary Cities and Towns 4.1.11 Shanxi had neither national central cities nor large towns. Daqing yitong zhi listed a total of 10 medium towns in Shanxi. They were Yuncheng and Zhangdian of Jiezhou, Yunzu town of Liaozhou, Yuanwo, Dongyang, Yongkang, and Wanghu towns of Taiyuan Prefecture, Longhua Town of Pingyang fu, Chugou town of Fenzhou, and Mishan town of Zezhu. Yuncheng town “had a busy salt industry for which people gathered, making it the most important place.” Yuncu town “was located 35 li west of Yushe county, and it had more marketplaces than cities and capitals.” Mishan Town, “located 10 li east of Gaoping county, had forts and it was connected to Zezhou and Luzhou. It was densely populated and crowded with merchants.” Though these towns were considered Shandong’s medium towns, we estimate their population to have only been 2,000. 4.2 Empirical Population and Model Estimates With the exception of Taiyuan, Feizhou, and Pingyang Prefectures, the relation between the urban population of a prefecture in Shanxi and its total population was obtained using the formular: Y = 0.0834X − 11.248 (R2 = 0.790)—very different from the Shanxi-Shaanxi model of Y = 0.0735X − 5.45 (R2 = 0.81). Due to the fact that the population was small in 1776, Xizhou and Guisui even had negative urban populations. That explains why the Shanxi-Shaanxi model is applied as outlined in Table 23.

374

Chapter 13

Table 23

Prefectural urban population in Shanxi in 1776 (/1,000)

Prefecture

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference rate (%)

Revised population

Jiezhou Jiangzhou Puzhou Fu Pingyang Fu Xizhou Huozhou Zezhou Fu Lu’anzhou Qinzhou Liaozhou Fenzhou Fu Taiyuan Fu Pingding Fu Xinzhou Baodezhou Daizhou Ningwu Fu Datong Fu Shuoping Fu Guisui

42 47 54 84 5 17 42 66 10 10 111 120 34 18 5 28 11 48 15 22

42 50 60 86 3 17 50 53 11 9 110 129 36 18 4 28 10 46 30 3

0 6.2 10.8 2.7 40.0 1.9 19.1 20.4 10.1 14.9 1.1 7.8 5.2 0 26.7 1.3 9.2 3.9 101.3 87.7

42 47 54 84 5 17 42 66 10 10 111 120 34 18 5 28 11 48 15 22

Table 23 shows that there were still significant differences between the empirical population and model estimates in Shuoping and Guisui because they underwent migration and redevelopment. Therefore, the relation between the urban population and the total is not perceptible. As such, to obtain the revised population, the empirical population model is applied To sum up, Shanxi Province had a total urban population of 789,000 in 1776. 5

Shaanxi

Empirical Research on the Urban Population 5.1 5.1.1 Xi’an Xi’an, the provincial capital of Shaanxi, had two fuguo counties, Chang’an and Xianning. According to Volume 10 of Xianning County Zhi, in the Jiaqing period,

The Urban Population in Northern China

375

there were 5,512 households and 34,002 inhabitants living in the city and the neighborhoods outside the city gate. On the contrary, the situation of Chang’an county remained unknown. According to Volume 21 of Xi’an Prefecture Zhi, in the Qianlong period, Xianning county and Chang’an had a population of 352,000 and 147,000 in 1778 (Qianlong 43rd year), respectively. So, the population of Chang’an was 41.8% compared to that of Xianning. Based on this proportion, there were 14,000 Chang’an’s residents in the capital of Xi’an Fu, bringing the total urban population of Xi’an to 48,000. In Qianlong 43rd year, the sex ratio of Xianning and Chang’an was 153.1, too high to be reliable given the women population was underestimated. Therefore, we estimate Xian’an had an urban population of 55,000 with a revised sex ratio of 110. Shi Hongshuai (2008) believes that the Manchu population was not taken into account in the calculation. There were 5,000 soldiers in Manchu city in Xi’an, meaning the population would have been 25,000 if the family members of the soldiers were included. Considering the average annual growth rate was 4‰, then in 1776, then the population would have been 42,000 inhabitants. Therefore, Xi’an would have had a non-Manchu population of approximately 97,000 inhabitants—similar to the Shi’s estimate.9 5.1.2 Qianzhou City Qianzhou was promoted to Zhili Zhou in the Yongzheng period. According to Volume 3 of Qianzhou Xinzhi, during the Yongzheng period, there were 1,000 households and 3,000 residents “on the east and west streets of the city;” there were another 9,000 households and 27,000 residents on the outskirts. Yet, instead of being considered actual population figures, “households and inhabitants” were meant to be “taxable units” in Kangxi 60th year. According to Qinjiang zhilue (Essentials of Administration in Shaanxi Province), the population of Qianzhou, in 1823 (Daoguang 3rd year), was 156,000—a reliable figure. At an average annual growth rate of 3‰, there should have been 135,000 residents in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). According to the data of 1721 (Kangxi 60th year), the number of households and residents on the east and west streets of the city made up 10.7% of the total population of Qianzhou. Therefore, Qianzhou would have had an urban population of 14,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 5.1.3 Other Prefectural Capitals The population of the capitals of Binzhou, Tongzhou, Fuzhou, and Yan’an is set at 14,000 each, the same as that of most prefectural capitals of Shanxi. Based 9

Shi, H. (2008). Research on the Urban Geography of Xi’an in Ming-Qing Times (pp. 406–423). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

376

Chapter 13

on the 1910 figures, the capital of Hanzhong Prefecture should have had a population of 24,000 in 1776, with an average annual growth rate of 4‰. For its part, the population of the capital of Fengxiang Prefecture is considered to be the same as that of Hanzhong Prefecture, while the population of the capital of Suide is set to be 5,000. For the capitals of Xing’an and Shangzhou that witnessed massive immigration, we determine their population to be one-third of that of 1910, i.e., 10,000 and 3,000 respectively. 5.1.4 The Capital of Yaozhou County According to Volume 4 of Xu Yaozhou Zhi, in the Qianlong 27th year, there were 8,039 households across the county and 1,685 households “on the four streets in the city,” meaning the urban population made up 21% of the total population. According to Volume 13 of Xi’an Prefecture Zhi, in the Qianlong period, Yaozhou had a population of 58,000 in 1778 (Qianlong 43rd year). Therefore, the urban population would have been 11,000, assuming it accounted for 20%. Of the 16 counties and zhou governed by Xi’an Fu in 1778 (Qianlong 43rd year), Yaozhou only exceeded Gaoling and Tongguan counties in population size. That means Yaozhou was certainly not a large county population-wise; it should have been small. Despite this fact, it was promoted to a Zhili Zhou in 1725 (Yongzheng 3rd year). The promotion was predominantly because of the large population of the prefecture. The population of the capitals of 13 counties, excluding Lantian county, should be set at 11,000 each in 1776,—a reasonable figure given the population figure was 13,000 in 1910. 5.1.5 The Capital of Lantian County Lantian was an ordinary county in Xi’an Prefecture. According to Volume 6 of Lantian County Zhi, in the Guangxu period, the county had a total population of 4,000, including native people, immigrants, and hired laborers. Immigrants would move to Lantian only in the late Qianlong, Jiaqing, and Daoguang years because it was located at the south border of the Guanzhong Basin and the north border of the mountainous areas of Southern Shaanxi. Therefore, the capital of Lantian county, excluding the immigrant population, should have been 2,000 in 1776. 5.1.6 The Capital of Baishui County According to Zhang Ping (2006), Baishui county of Tongzhou Prefecture had sparse market places, including only 10 stores or so in its bustling commercial district. The limited population means the prefecture could not be a large city. Likewise, the capital of Baihe county, in the early Qing Dynasty, was described as “barren everywhere with no city wall at all.” Only 108 stores turned out to

The Urban Population in Northern China

377

donate to the city wall reparation in Jiaqing 1st year.10 Given this scenario, we determine it was hard for the urban population to reach 2,000. But it did reach 3,000 in the late Qing Dynasty when the population of county capitals averaged 6,000. Located east of the Guanzhong Basin, Tongzhou Prefecture was hit hard by the Guangxu Famine. Therefore, the population of its capital could be set at 10,000 in 1776. Based on this figure, the population of other county capitals can be estimated. 5.1.7 The Capital of Fufeng County According to Volume 4 of Fufeng County Zhi, in the Jiaqing period, there were 405 native households with 1,747 inhabitants and 82 immigrant households with 308 people including men, women, old, and young on the baojia list in Fufeng county of Fengxiang Prefecture in 1817 (Jiaqing 22nd year). The population barely reached the minimum number for the county to be considered a city. The population was probably lower in the Qianlong period. Regarding the densely populated Baoji county, the average population of the county capitals of Fengxiang Prefecture is set at 6,000 in 1776. In contrast, it was set at 5,000 in 1910. 5.1.8 The Capital of Anding County According to Volume 4 of Anding County Zhi, the capital of Anding county in Yan’an Prefecture had 631 “native households” with 2,706 inhabitants and 23 immigrant households with 200 people. Therefore, the population of the capital of Anding county might have been 2,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), which is precisely the average population of the county capitals of Yan’an Prefecture in 1910. Therefore, the average population of the county capitals of Yan’an, Yulin, and Guisui is also set at 2,000. 5.1.9 The Capital of Shiquan County According to Volume 5 of Shiyuan County Zhi, in the Daoguang period, there were 1,155 households and 5,815 people in the city of Shiquan county of Xing’an Prefecture. In the county, there were a total of 12,000 households and 74,000 residents. However, according to Qinjiang zhilue, the population was 88,000 in 1823 (Daoguang 3rd year); the actual year is 1820 (Jiaqing 25th year), higher than the 10 Zhang, P. (2006). Diyu Huanjing Yu Shichang Kongjian–Ming Qing Shaanxi Quyu Shichang De Lishi Dilixue Yanjiu (Geographical environment and market space. A historical geographical research of the market in Shaanxi in the Ming and Qing Dynasties) (pp. 157–161). Beijing: The Commercial Press.

378

Chapter 13

figures recorded in Shiquan County Zhi. Because of over-farming and deforestation, the population of mountainous areas in Southern Shaanxi slumped in the mid-Jiaqing years, so the record of Shiquan County Zhi should be the registered population in the mid or late Daoguang period. Immigrants made up 16.8% of the total population of Fufeng county. However, in Shiquan county, an immigrant center, immigrants probably accounted for half of the urban population. If such was the case, then the capital of Shiquan county ought to have had a population of 3,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 5.1.10 Other Counties We set the population of county capitals of other prefectures in 1776 the same as that of 1910; for Shangzhou, Xing’an and Hanzhong, however, we set it at half the population of 1910. 5.1.11 Commercial Towns Daqing yitong zhi listed eight medium-sized towns (described as commercial towns) with description of their commerce s including Qindu and Chenlu of Xi’an fu; Zhaodu of Tongzhou fu; Linzhen and Shajia of Yan’an fu; and Lumo, Fenshi, and Haodian of Yan’an fu. Despite the commercial characteristics of Baizhi town of Yan’an fu in Daqing yitong zhi, the book actually maintained that “it used to be where merchants converged,” suggesting that the intense commercial activities of the town are a thing of the past. Zhang Ping (2006) does not include this information given that the county had no more than 100 stores. Similarly, in Huayin county of Tongzhou Prefecture, large towns were characterized as “having markets,” and none of the 216 small towns of Shaanxi had a minimum population of a city. This can be proved by local Records. According to Volume 2 of Fengxiang Prefecture Zhi in the Qianlong period, “Markets opened every day” both on the south street and the east pass of the capital of Fengxiang, and markets of the four towns under its jurisdiction opened on even or odd numbered days. That means they continued to be the “fairs” of South China. This way, the three towns characterized as business towns can only be considered small towns of Shangdong. Hence, we set the population of each town at 2,000 and we choose not to discuss the other 216 smaller towns, which we consider rural fairs, at this juncture. 5.2 Empirical Population and Model Estimates Excluding Xi’an Fu, the relation between the urban population of a prefecture of Shaanxi and its total population is calculated as: Y = 0.066X + 0.7436 (R2 = 0.8387), slightly different from the Shanxi-Shaanxi model of Y = 0.0735X − 

379

The Urban Population in Northern China Table 24

Urban population of Shaanxi by prefecture in 1776 (/1,000 people)

Prefecture

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference rate (%)

Revised population

Xi’an fu Tongzhou fu Fuzhou Xing’an fu Shangzhou Hanzhong fu Suidezhou Yulin fu Yan’an fu Fengxiang fu Binzhou Qianzhou

267 106 20 22 11 51 16 32 36 66 16 24

161 105 17 7 6 51 17 29 38 67 15 21

26.0 0.8 14.4 66.6 41.0 0.8 7.4 9.6 4.7 1.1 6.7 14.4

267 106 20 22 11 51 16 32 36 66 16 24

5.4489 (R2  =  0.810). See Table 24 for the empirical population and model estimates. The population of Xing’an Fu and Shangzhou, measured by the model, was small in 1776 when the influx of immigrants began. That is why the two sets of data differ considerably. So, the empirical population is applied to be the revised population of Shaanxi. To sum up, Shaanxi would have had an urban population of 667,000 in 1776. 6

Gansu

Gansu used to be part of Shaanxi Province; however, it was split from Shaanxi and Shaanxi Military Commission and the city of Lanzhou was upgraded to the provincial capital in the early Qing Dynasty. Therefore, it is impossible for Lanzhou city to have had a population as high as 50,000. We perceive it as a prefectural capital, so its population is set at 30,000. 6.1 The Capital of Liangzhou Fu Wuwei county was the fuguo county of Liangzhou Prefecture of Gansu, its capital being the prefectural capital. It was recorded in Volume 1 of Wuwei County Zhi, written in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), that there were 11,627 households

380

Chapter 13

and 27,537 inhabitants in the city. Therefore, the population of the capital of Liangzhou would have reached 30,000 by 1776. The population of the rest of the prefectural capitals is set at 25,000. 6.2 Jingjing Zhou City According to Volume 3 of Jingjing Zhou Zhi, written in 1746 (Qianlong 11th year), that there were 1,666 households and 13,366 kou living “on three streets” in Jingjing Zhou city of Pingliang Prefecture. “Households” here might refer to “adult males” in the early Qing Dynasty, while “kou” shall indicate the real population size. At an average annual growth rate of 2.5‰, the population probably increased to 14,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). Therefore, the we set the standard population of the capital of Zhou at 12,000. The Capital of Heshui County 6.3 According to Volume 2 of Heshui County Zhi edited in the Qianlong years, there were 282 households “on the east and west streets and passes of the city” in 1761 (Qianlong 26th year) or earlier in Heshui county of Qingyang Prefecture, though the population remained unknown. That year, there were a total of 10,000 households and 55,000 inhabitants in the whole county—meaning there was a reasonable person per household. Given that its households were, indeed, residential, that would mean there would have been over a thousand residents. With the exclusion of administrative cities, Northwest China hardly had any pure commercial cities. The higher a city’s administrative rank was, the more functional was its commerce, and the more its urban population. That is why county-level cities had very low commercial status in Northwest China. 6.4 Other Prefectural Capitals and County Capitals Another reason why county-level cities in Gansu had a small population is the administrative promotion of some large zhou (county-level zhou)-level cities, similar to the situation in Shaanxi. Suzhou, Qinzhou, and Jiezhou were promoted to Zhili zhou. It is appropriate to set the population of the capitals of all Zhili Zhou and zhou at 12,000, and county capitals at an average 1,000. Among Gansu towns listed in Daqing yitong zhi, only Dongzhi town of Qingyang fu had was described as “a thoroughfare where trade flourished.” Mubo town, with a circumference of 6 li, or nearly 0.74 km, most probably had 5,000 residents. It is said that Bi town of Wen county, Jiazhou, had 114 stores, corresponding roughly to a population of 11,000.11 Bi town, also known as 11

See Statistical Tables of Agriculture and Commerce in Chapter 18 of this book for more information.

The Urban Population in Northern China

381

Bikou town, was a wharf at the junction of Sichuan and Gansu where ferries entered the Jialing River along the Bailong River to Chongqing. But it is not found in the Qianlong version of Daqing yitong zhi, probably an omission. Its urban population in 1776 is set at 5,000. Due to the warfare in the Tongzhi years, there was a weak relation between the urban population of the prefecture of Gansu and its total population in 1910. Apart from Gongchang Prefecture and Ningxia Prefecture, the relation between the urban population of the remaining prefectures and its total in 1910 is calculated as: Y = 0.0576X + 7.5357 (R2 = 0.649). According to the results, the empirical population is significantly lower than the modelled population. Given that the Shaanxi model arrives at the same result, we apply the empirical population across the board. 7

Xinjiang

Zhang Jianjun (1999) has written articles based on the research conducted vis-à-vis the population of cities in Xinjiang in the Qianlong years.12 He quotes Xiyu dili tushuo (Geographical illustrated account of the Western Regions) that among the eight cities of Southern Xinjiang, Yarkent had a population of 12,000, Kashgar 9,000, Yengisar 8,000, Hotan 4,000, Aksu 3,000, and the rest less than 2,000. The urban population of these eight cities totaled 40,000. If the record is reliable, the urban population of these eight cities could have increased to 42,000. That accounted for 7.1% of the population of South Xinjiang, which was 590,000, in 1776 when the total provincial population was about 860,000. Based on the ratio, the urban population, with the partial exclusion of the military population of Northern Xinjiang, should have been 60,000. 12 Zhang, J. (1999). On the population size of cities of Xinjiang in the Qing Dynasty. Journal of Chinese Historical Geography (4).

Chapter 14

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty 1

Jiangsu

Empirical Studies on the Urban Population 1.1 1.1.1 Nanjing According to Vol. 8 of Jiangning Xian Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), the household number of urban Jiangning county reached 41,000. However, the number of households in the cities under the jurisdiction of Shangyuan county is unknown. According to Vol. 2 of Gu Qiyuan’s (1565–1628) Ke Zuo Zhui Yu, the population of Jiangning district ( fang) accounted for 34.4% of the total population of Jiangning city in terms of the number of hu (household), which allows us to estimate that the household number of the urban Nanjing city during the Qianlong period (1736–1796) was close to 120,000. Then, if we assume that there was an average of 4 people per household, then the population of Nanjing city was around 480,000. The above-cited Vol. 8 of Jiangning Xian Zhi also mentions that “the number of unregistered population in the region is higher than the indigenous population,” which indicates that a significant proportion of the inhabitants were not accounted for in the current number. Based on the analysis in Chapter 7 of this book, we estimate that the urban population of Nanjing was up to 853,000 during the Qianlong period (1736–1796). In addition, we estimate that the population of Nanjing city in 1853 (Xianfeng 3rd year), including the “some 900,000” registered people1 and the unregistered ones, could have exceeded one million. 1.1.2 Suzhou The urban population of Suzhou was up to 500,000 in the late Ming Dynasty. However, because of the pneumonic plague in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, and the war in the early Qing Dynasty, the population of Suzhou city declined to about 200,000. With the development of the silk weaving industry, the printing and dyeing industry, and other handicrafts in the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), Suzhou quickly restored its status as a central city of handicraft in 1 (The Tongzhi period 1862–1874). Xianfeng San Nian Yilai Bing Shi. Shangyuan Jiangning Liang Xian Zhi (Vol. 18).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_015

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

383

China. It is estimated that by the middle of the Qing Dynasty, the urban population of Suzhou reached 500,000. 1.1.3 Yangzhou The population of Yangzhou city plummeted after the Yangzhou Massacre (also known as the 10-Day Yangzhou Massacre), which was the mass killings of civilians in Yangzhou by Manchu forces in 1645. The remaining population was so small that Yangzhou could barely be referred to as a city. With the development of the salt economy in the Kangxi period (1662–1722) and the Yongzheng period (1723–1735) of the Qing Dynasty, the population of Yangzhou, which had become the center of the salt economy, increased. During the Qianlong (1736–1795) and Jiaqing (1796–1820) periods, many tradesmen lived among civilians, making the household number of Yangzhou city exceed several hundred thousand at at one point. We estimate that under normal conditions, Yangzhou city would have had about 100,000 households including 450,000 in the urban area. 1.1.4 Huai’an Huai’an prefectural city, located on the border of the line north and south China, was an important city for river regulation (he), river transportation (cao), salt economy (yan), and the garrison (guan). According to existing literature, Huai’an was not damaged severely in the early Qing turmoil, and therefore, its total population did not change significantly. After the garrisons were abolished, the military population became civilian, and Huai’an became more a commercial rather than a military base. The area known as Xihuzui (west lake mouth), which was located in the near-by region outside the city gate of Huai’an, became increasingly prosperous, in fact more prosperous than in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). According to findings of Wang Zhenzhong, the prosperity of this new urban region,2 in comparison with the situations in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), probably increased the population of Huai’an city to 200,000. 1.1.5 Qingjiangpu In the mid-Ming Dynasty, the Yellow River flooded into Huaibei plain causing low water levels in the branches between Qingjiangpu and Xuzhou and, to the north, in the canals of the south and north of Shandong. To guarantee the transportation of public agricultural produce, the Ming government banned 2 Wang, Z. (1996). Ming Qing Hui Shang Yu Huaiyang Shehui Bianqian (p. 78). Beijing: san lian shu dian.

384

Chapter 14

the transport of all official, trading, and civilian boats in these river courses. All people traveling between the north and the south by these boats had to change to land transportation at Qingjiangpu or the Wangyingzhen town across the bank. As a result, Qingjiangpu became the center of transportation between the north and the south. It was recorded that in Qiangjiangpu: “Boats and carts were everywhere, many hired by officials. All hustling and bustling. The markets along both sides of the river extended for dozens of miles.” In terms of the size of the city, the residential population probably reached 200,000. Qingjiangpu reached its heyday with the re-establishment of Qinghe as an administrative county in 1761 (Qianlong 26th year).3 1.1.6 Yizheng Like Huai’an, Yizheng did not suffer from the turmoil of the transition between the Ming and Qing dynasties. Therefore, its population level was preserved. In the early Qing Dynasty, Yizheng, functioning as a transport center for salt in the south of Huaihe River, continued to maintain the prosperity of the Ming Dynasty. It was recorded that “in Yizheng, there were no less than tens of thousands of employed workers”4 in the salt transport industry alone. According to Vol. 15 of Yizheng Xian Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), Yizheng had 370,000 registered inhabitants, including a farming population that accounted for “less than 30 or 40 percent while the rest of the population was employed in the salt industry.” Therefore, we can estimate that the workers and urban population were around 243,000. There is no doubt that the regular urban population of Yizheng surpassed 200,000. Back in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), the residential population of urban Yizheng would have been around 150,000. 1.1.7 Zhenjiang Zhenjiang, located in the north end of the Jiangnan Canal, was a north-south exchange hub. It was documented that, in 1858 (Xianfeng 8th year), the population of Zhenjiang was about 330,000, then it dropped to only some 100,000 after Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864) even though later, the numbers rose year after year to their initial level. Wang Shuhuai questioned the accuracy of these numbers, arguing “it can be estimated that the population was larger before the war.”5 It is clear that the population of Zhenjiang city was larger 3 Huaiyin shi difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1995). Huaiyin Shi Zhi (p. 16). Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. In Qianlong 40th year, Qingjiangpu had a population of 540,000. The source of data is unclear. 4 Li, Tizhai. (1958). Zhenzhou Zhu Zhi Ciwu. Taibei: Zhonghua Congshu Weiyuanhui. 5 Wang, S. (1985). Zhongguo Xiandai Hua De Quyu Yanjiu: Jiangsu Sheng (p. 493). Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica.

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

385

than that of an average prefectural city. We, therefore, estimate that, in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), the population might have reached 150,000. 1.1.8 Other Prefectural Cities The population of such canal cities as Tianjin, Linqing, Jining, Qingjiangpu, Huai’an, Yizheng, and Zhenjiang was about 150,000 to 200,000 each. We know that, in 1910, Xuzhou city had a population of 32,000. Therefore, if we assume that the average annual growth rate was 3.4‰, we can estimate that in 1776, the city had a population of around 20,000. Similiarly, knowing that in 1910 Changzhou and Taicang fu (prefecture) had about 100,000 and 25,000 urban residents respectively, we can calculate that in 1776, the population of the two cities was 63,000 and 16,000 respectively. County Cities under Taizhou and Jiangsu 1.1.9 First, with regard to Taizhou under Yangzhou fu (prefecture), according to Vol. 9 of Taizhou Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1782–1850), the verified population of “the city itself” (bencheng) in 1775 (Qianlong 40th year) was 11,411 households and about 50,000 residents. We know that in 1910, Taizhou city had a population of 79,000 with an urban population average annual growth rate of 3.4‰ from 1776 to 1910. From the beginning of the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), just like in Gaoyou county, the urban population of Xinghua county under Yangzhou fu (prefecture) grew significantly due to the rise of the salt industry. In 1910, the average urban population of Gaoyou, Baoying, and Guanyun counties was around 37,000, about half of that of Taizhou. Haimen county had an urban population of 25,000, and the county cities under Xuzhou fu (prefecture) had an average of 17,000 inhabitants. Using the urban population number of Taizhou as the baseline, we can then estimate that in 1776, Tongzhou city had some 50,000 inhabitants, and the counties under Yangzhou fu (prefecture) had an average of 25,000 inhabitants on average. In addition, knowing that the population of the counties under Huai’an was 19,000 on average in 1910, 16,000 under Haimen, and 11,000 under Xuzhou, we can estimate that in 1776, the counties under these three prefectures had about 12,000, 10,000, and 7,000 inhabitants respectively. It is noteworthy that, during the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), Guanyun was still under Haizhou, not yet an administrative county. Therefore, we can still assume that the size of Haizhou county was the same as that of Yangzhou county. 1.1.10 County Capitals under Wujiang, Jinshan, and Sunan According to Vol. 4 of Wujiang Xian Zhi edited in 1747 (Qianlong 12th year), Wujiang county had a total of 2,000 households and about 10,000 residents.

386

Chapter 14

If we assume the average annual growth rate was 3.4‰, we can conclude that, by 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the urban population was around 11,000. In 1910, we understand that the counties under Suzhou, Zhenjiang, Songjiang, Taicang, and Jiangning fu (prefectures) had an average of 34,000, 30,000, 27,000, 23,000, and 15,000 inhabitants, respectively, (including the population of the county cities and towns). If we use the number from Wujiang city as a baseline, we deduce that in 1776, the counties under Zhenjiang, Songjiang, Taicang, and Jiangning had about 10,000, 9,000, 7,000, and 5,000 inhabitants, respectively. This estimation can be supported by existing literature. Jinshan was established as an administrative county under Zhujingzhen town in 1726 (Yongzheng 4th year). According to Vol. 3 of Ye Mengzhu’s Yue Shi Bian, in the early Qing Dynasty, Zhujingzhen town already had “tens of thousands of homes,” and by the Qianlong period (1736–1796) the town was “crowded with people and tradesmen and it had an urban atmosphere.” In 1910, as a result of the industrialization of Wuxi and Jiangyin counties, the average population of a county under Changzhou fu (prefecture) reached 46,000. We then can estimate that in 1776, the population of each county was around 11,000. 1.1.11 Commercial Cities and Towns In this section, towns with over 5,000 inhabitants are considered medium, while those with over 10,000 inhabitants are considered large. There were also some “zhen” (town) or “shi” (city) that were relatively less-known and economically inactive, having only a few hundred inhabitants and a population of only about 2,000. In this section, we have left out towns having a population of less than 400 households, considering that these towns were too small. In addition, we have not included Yuecheng, Banshanqiao, Fengqiao, and Shantang as cities or towns of their own, given that they were considered as part of Suzhou city. If we compare A General Record of Jiangnan edited in 1736 (Qianlong 1st year) and Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in 1778 (Qianlong 43rd year) with the other local histories or gazetteers, we can estimate the population and the sizes of the commercial cities and towns in Jiangsu in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 1.1.12 Suzhou Fu See Table 25 for the cities and towns listed under Suzhou fu respectively in Jiangnan Tongzhi (The General Records of Jiangnan) edited in the Qianlong period and Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796). According to Jiangnan Tong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), there were seven towns, including the patrol divisions (xunjiansi), in Wuxian county, but Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796) recorded three more towns. The two patrol divisions, Dongshan and Jiaotou,

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty Table 25

Wuxian Changzhou Yuanhe Kunshan Xinyang Changshu Zhaowen Wujiang Zhenze

387

Cities and towns under Suzhou in the Qianlong period (1736–1796)

Jiangnan Tong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period

Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period

Hengtang, Mudu, Guangfu, Shexia, Wutaxun, Dongshanxun, Jiaotouxun Xushuguan, Zhouzhuang, Lumu, Tangpu, Jinshu, Huangdaishi, Wumushi, Yinshanshi Luzhi, Weiting, Likou Shipu, Bachengxun, Qiandun, Banshanqiaoshi, Wujiaqiaoshi Penglang Huangsipu, Fushan, Tangshi, Tianzhuang, Liantangshi Meili, Baimaogangxun, Zhitang, Laoxu, Dongjiabangxinshi, Lishi Fenhu, Shengze, Tongli, Lili Zhenze, Pingwang, Meiyan

Jiancun, Hengjin, Wangting Chenmu

Qiuxu, Siqiao

Qing’an, Xupu

Bachi Yanmu

Note on the figures of the cities and towns under Suzhou fu (prefecture): The italicized names in the A General Record of Jiangnan column are not recorded in Daqing Yitong Zhi. Those that appear in the Daqing Yitong Zhi column are also not recorded in Jiangnan Tong Zhi. The same applies to the tables below.

were located in the east and west mountains of the Dongting River. Both were densely populated by people who earned their livelihood working in various trades. Therefore, these two patrol divisions can be counted as city-level towns. We can confirm the existence of four towns under Changzhou county. We did not find records of two towns, Tangpu and Jinshu, which were mentioned in Jiangnan Tong Zhi. This is also true for Wumu and Yinshan cities. According to Fan Shuzhi’s research,6 in Huangdi town, “most of the people in the town lived by growing rice,” and he also mentioned that the women were engaged in handicraft making, so the town had many shops. In short, we count Huangdi as one of the towns.

6 Fan, S. (2005). Jiang Nan Shi Zhen: Chuantong De Biange (pp. 123–151). Shanghai: Fudan daxue Publishing House.

388

Chapter 14

Yuanhe county only had three towns. According to Vol. 4 of Yuan He Wei Tin Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), in the early years of the Qing Dynasty, there were “hundreds of thousands of houses,” and the region reached its heyday in the Qianlong (1736–1795) and Jiaqing (1796–1820) periods, having “cropland after cropland, thousands of thousands of houses.” Based on the size of Shengze town, we estimate that the population of Weiting town was no less than 20,000. We can confirm the existence of three towns under Changshu county. Fan Shuzhi has cited records of Taishu city from Jiangnan Tong Zhi, maintaining, “In the Qianlong era, although Tangshu was called a city, it was, actually, a town. It was listed at the time among the four big towns of Changshu and Zhaowen. It had the scale of a county-level city.” Therefore, we count it in, but as a middle-scale town because we are not certain it could be categorized as a large town. We can only confirm the existence of two towns under Zhaowen county. Daqing Yitong Zhi shows records of Zhitang. However, Fan Shuzhi noted in his research that the perimeter of the town was about 5 li, and that the town had 3,000 households. Therefore, we can estimate that the town had about 15,000 people. At 575 meters per li, the town occupied a surface area of 0.5 square kilometers. That means the population per square kilometer was as high as 30,000. Nevertheless, Jiang Weitao’s research maintains that in the Republic of China (1912–1949), only four counties, Yixing, Wujin, Liyang, and Wuxi, had a population of or over 30,000 per square kilometer in the Jiangnan region. The population of counties like Chuansha, Danyang, and Jiashan was about 15,000 per square kilometer; for counties like Kunshan, Jiangyin, and Pinghu it was only 5,000 per square kilometer.7 Therefore, the population of Zhitang town appears to be questionably dense. In the following part, we will make estimates, assuming that in these regions there were 10,000 to 15,000 people per square kilometer. According to Jiangnan Tong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796) and Qianlong Yitong Zhi, there were five towns, Fenhu, Shengze, Tongli, Lili, and Bachi, under the jurisdiction of Wujiang county. On the other hand, Wujiang Xian Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796) maintains that in addition to Shengze, Tongli, Lili, and Bachi, there were also two other towns, i.e. Huxu and Zhangliantang, and four cities, i.e. Xinhang, Huangxi, Tuncun, Jiangnan. However, Fenghu town was not included. Records show that Lili town had about 2,500 households, Zhangliantang also had several thousands 7 Jiang, W. (2015). Ji Yu Dixing Tu Ziliao Yu GIS De Minguo Jiangnan Chengshi Renkou Gusuan. Zhongguo Jingji Shi Yanjiu, (4), 39–56.

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

389

of households, and Huangxi had 2,000 households. All were large towns. Meanwhile, Bachi8 city only had 200 households and was recorded in Daqing Yitong Zhi as a town. It, therefore, can be said that Bachi town witnessed significant population growth during the Qianlong period (1736–1796). The household numbers for Jiangnan and Xinhang were both 1,000 meaning they were medium-size towns. Finally, Tuncun had several hundreds of households, which allowed it to be counted as an average-size city or town. In total, therefore, we count these six cities and towns. According to Yan Ge, Volume I of Shenghu Zhi9 edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), “Nowadays, there are hundreds of thousands of households here, a hundred times more than in the past. It’s as bustling as the Changmen gate districts in Suzhou.” Here, the “hundreds of thousands of households” included the nearby countrysides. However, if we take into account the floating population, we can confidently estimate that the population of Shengze town in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) was over 30,000. Nevertheless, according to Shenghu Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), the whole town covered only an area of one or two li, and according to Shenghu Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), “the area covered no more than two or three li.” This means that the town covered an area of about 2 square kilometers. If we assume a population of 15,000 per square kilometer, the population would then be around 30,000. According to Vol. 4 of Zhenze Xian Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), Zhenze county had about 2,500 households and a population as high as 15,000 if the floating population is included. According to the same source, Meiyan, Tanqiu, and Yanmu cities had respectively 500, 250, and 200 households. The fact that Daqing Yitong Zhi only mentioned Yanmu indicates that the population of Yanmu increased during the Qianlong period (1736–1796). In short, we can confirm the existence of 40 towns from the records of Jiangnan Tong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796) and Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796). Now, if we include the six towns from Wujiang Xian Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), that would be the total number of 46 towns under Wujiang county. Among these 46 towns, six towns, i.e. Shengze, Weiting, Lili, Zhenze, Zhitang, Huangxi, were large, seven towns, i.e. Luzhi, Zhouzhuang, Tongli, Jiangnan, Luxu, Xinhang, Pingwang, and Tangshi were medium size, and the rest were small. In Appendix 8, the population of the large towns is accounted for based on their calculated totalities, 8 Translator’s note: Bachi (八赤), also known as 八斥. 9 Section Yange in Shenghu Zhi (Shenghu Records).

390

Chapter 14

with the medium towns having an average of 5,000 inhabitants per town and the small ones an average of 3,000 per town. This calculation is based on the assumption that each town was about 0.33 square kilometers (a li a town) capable of accommodating 3,000 people on average. A comparison of Jiangnan Tong Zhi and Daqing Yitong Zhi indicates that the numbers of towns missing from both records were roughly the same. Therefore, our study of the other cities and towns in Jiangsu province was also largely based on Daqing Yitong Zhi, with reference to Jiangnan Tong Zhi. The comparison is omitted here. For the detailed numbers, see Appendix 8. We assume an average population of 3,000 people per city or town for the small cities and towns under Suzhou and Songjiang fu (prefectures), only an average population of 1,000 for the 40 small cities and towns under Huai’an fu (prefecture), and 2,000 for the cities and towns in the other districts. 1.2 Empirical Population and Model Estimates The equation indicates the relationship between the urban population against the prefectural population in Jiangsu, Anhui, and Zhejiang provinces in 1910: Y = 0.0932X − 0.4729 (R2 = 0.6754). The above equation has already taken into consideration the urban population of Jiangsu, Anhui, and Zhejiang provinces. Therefore, in theory, using this model to estimate the urban population in 1776 can save us from calculating the urban population of the prefectural cities and towns. However, due to the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864), the population of the southeastern regions significantly declined as a result of the destruction of many towns and cities. We have decided to adopt a tentative calculation approach to focus on the numbers of towns and cities, not the population. This is because this book sometimes takes 1949 as a starting point of reference in the attempt to restore the urban population of 1910. Only, we understand that by this time, a considerable number of towns and cities had become desolated or were destroyed as a result of the Japanese invasion. The largest difference between the empirically confirmed number and the model estimation concerns the population of Haimenting. Between the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China (1912–1949), with the blockage of the northern branch of the Yangtze River near Chongming Island, the Qidong deltaic plain was formed, and a large number of people moved in. This influx led to an increase in the urban population which, in turn, affects our calculation of the total population. Therefore, in our revision of the population data, we have decided to utilize empirically confirmed numbers. By 1910, the Xuzhou fu (prefecture) was still a traditionally agricultural region that had a low proportion of its population involved in industrial and commercial activities. This

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty Table 26

391

Population of cities and towns in Jiangsu by prefectures in 1776. Unit: /1,000 people

Fu (prefecture)

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference ratio (%)

Correction

Jiangning Yangzhou Tongzhou Haimenting Haizhou Xuzhou Huai’an Suzhou Songjiang Zhenjiang Changzhou Taichang

883 615 150 10 60 97 285 706 176 171 170 148

367 480 168 53 96 275 245 476 212 164 290 132

58.5 21.9 12.1 426.5 59.7 183.3 14.2 32.6 20.3 3.8 70.5 10.7

883 615 168 53 60 97 285 706 176 171 170 148

explains the large differences between the two columns of data. On the contrary, in Changzhou and Songjiang, and Wuxi and Shanghai, the urban population grew rapidly, hence the significant differences among the data of these regions. In summary, the population of Jiangsu province in 1776 was 3,532,000. 2

Zhejiang

2.1 Empirical Studies on the Urban Population 2.1.1 Hangzhou A detailed documentation of the demographics in the early years of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) is missing and what could be found is documentation after the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864). Records on the aftermath of the war maintain that the population of Hangzhou was reduced from 600,000 to only 70,000 after the War.10 It, therefore, can be estimated that the urban population of Hangzhou during the Qianlong period (1736–1796) was about 500,000.

10 Xu, Y. (1988). Liang Zhe Shishi Cong Gao (p. 219). Hangzhou: Zhejiang guji Publishing House.

392

Chapter 14

2.1.2 Jiaxing Prefectural City During the Wanli period (1573–1620) of the Ming Dynasty, the number of households in Jiaxing reached 10,000. Chen Xuewen notes in his research that, according to Dong Shi Jia Pu (Dong’s Genealogy) from 1619 (Wanli 47th year), in the South Lake (nanhu) region, there are “10,000 houses near the lake, one row after another, indeed a grand scene.” The population might have been even larger during the Qianlong period (1736–1796). We estimate that the urban population, at the time, could be around 70,000. However, a significant proportion of the urban population died during the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864). In 1928, the urban population of Jiaxing city grew to 100,000 because the industry and commerce sector prospered after the opening of the Shanghai-Hangzhou railway. Ningbo Prefectural Capital 2.1.3 According to Yinxian Zhi: Yu Di Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), the population of Yinxian county in 1855 was 214,000, which grew to 650,000 in 1912 and to 730,000 in 1928. The same source notes that the total urban population of Ningbo, in 1912, was close to 147,000 and in 1928, it increased to 212,000.11 Therefore, the average annual growth rate of the population in the inner city and nearby area was 23.1‰. If we assume that the average annual population growth rate from 1855 to 1912 was 10‰, we can estimate that the urban population of Ningbo in 1855 was about 83,000. With an average annual growth rate of 4‰, the Ningbo prefectural city probably had about 61,000 inhabitants in 1776. As one of the five treaty ports, Ningbo has witnessed rapid population growth in modern times. Wenzhou Prefectural Capital 2.1.4 Li Guoqi mentions in his research that records from Zhong Guo Kun Yu Xiang Zhi edited in 1906 (Guangxu 32nd year) show that Wenzhou prefectural city had about 80,000 people. Taking into account the impact of the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864) and assuming the average annual growth rate 2‰, we can estimate that the population in 1776 was 63,000. 2.1.5 Other Prefectural Capitals By analogy, we set the population of Shaoxing prefectural city in 1776 at 70,000; Huzhou at 60,000; Jinhua, Quzhou, and Taizhou all at 30,000; and Chuzhou and Yanzhou at 20,000. The situation in Taizhou was somewhat special. Considering that Haimen could also be considered as a part of the 11 Li, G. (1985). Zhongguo Xiandai Hua De Quyu Yanjiu: Min Zhe Tai Diqu (p. 440). Taipei: Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica.

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

393

prefectural city, we can determine that the population of Taizhou city was 60,000 inhabitants. 2.1.6 Kaihua County Capital In the middle of the Qing Dynasty, the regions in Zhejiang started to separate their records of the urban and the rural population. Overall, the “ding” in these records, albeit with some exceptions, refers to the tax-paying population inherited from the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). According Vol. 4 of Kaihua County Zhi edited in 1795 (Qianlong 60th year), in Qianlong 60th year, “the actual hu that paid the taxes” (wanfu shizai hu) was 25,412 and the number of “kou” (mouths) was 36,084 including the “urban population” (shimin renkou) that was 998 kou. We can tell from the regular person-per-household ratio that this “kou” did not certainly refer to the population. Records of Vol. 5 of Kaihua County Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), maintain that in 1885 (Guangxu 11th year), Kaihua county had 29,745 “hu” and 133,519 “kou”, which makes a person-per-household ratio of 4.5. We, therefore, can determine that here the “hu” and “kou” actually referred to the household and the population. A comparison of the household and the population data from the Guangxu period (1875–1908) shows that the “hu” records from the Qianlong period (1736–1796) are credible. Thus, we ascertain that, during the Qianlong period (1736–1796), Kaihua county had 3,000 inhabitants. Also, in 1885 (Guangxu 11th year), the county had 582 urban households (chengshi min) and 2,641 adult and underage people (daxiao ding)—the same figures as in the Qianlong period (1736–1796). 2.1.7 Xianju County Capital According to Vol. 4 of Taizhou Fu Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), the population of Xianju county in 1869 (Tongzhi 8th year) was 12,000. Based on these figures, we can estimate that in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was around 10,000. 2.1.8 Other County Capitals In 1910, the population of the county cities or towns under the jurisdiction of Yanzhou, Chuzhou, and Quzhou was 7,000, 8,000, and 11,000, respectively. The population figure of Quzhou was significantly large, mainly because Jiangshan county town, which was under Quzhou’s jurisdiction, had a population as high as 22,000. According to our estimation, the population of each county under Hangzhou and Wenzhou fu (prefectures) could be set at 14,000. For the counties in Taizhou, Huzhou, and Shaoxing the population could be set at 17,000, 19,000, and 21,000 respectively; and for Jiaxing, Ningbo, and Jinhua at 30,000, 32,000, and 35,000 respectively. As for the regions that experienced severe

394

Chapter 14

devastation from the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864), we cannot use their post-war population data to estimate their population in 1776. We can only use the 1776 data as the post-war population in most of these regions, assuming that the numbers were close. If we consider that the annual growth rate was 3‰ in Jiaxing, Ningbo, Jinhua, and Quzhou, then we can estimate the population of the county cities and towns under these fu (prefectures) in 1776. 2.1.9 Commercial Cities and Towns Like any organic being, the liveliness of a city and town can wax and wane. Fan Shuzhi has discovered that there are discrepancies in the population records after comparing the data of the local histories and gazetteers of Zhejiang cities and towns and Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796). For instance, according to Fan, Fancun city under Hangzhou fu (prefecture) grew into a town in the late Ming Dynasty but later, it shrank to a city. Other examples include Wangdian, Xinfeng, Zhongdai, and Xinhang under Jiaxing. Fan considers the first one as a “huge town” ( ju zhen) and the latter three average-scale towns. In Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), these four towns are said to be “regions where merchants and tradesmen gather” and can be considered medium-sized cities and towns with a population of about 5,000 people. Wangjiangjing town, which already had some 7,000 households in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), was not mentioned in Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796). On the contrary, it was maintained in Vol. 1 of Wen Chuan Zhi Gao that, after the Qianlong period (1736–1796) and the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), the town had tens of thousands of households until it was set on fire by the soldiers during the Xianfeng period (1851–1861). Therefore, we count Wangjiangjing town as a large town with a population of 28,000 people. Similarly, Xincheng, Shimen, Puyuan, Wuqing, and Nanxun Xinshi, and other towns under Huzhou, which had already had tens of or several thousands of households each in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), were all counted by Fan as large-sized towns. Therefore, we also set their population at 28,000 each, even though in Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), they were considered as average-sized towns. We regard Zhapu, whose “city walls extended more than nine miles and into the land beyond,” as a large town. Considering that Wuqing town was co-administered by Jiaxing and Huzhou fu (prefectures), we count it as half a town for each prefecture. The data of Shuanglin town under Huzhou fu (prefecture) is worthy of a closer investigation. According to Vol. 18 of Shuanglin Zhen Zhi edited in the

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

395

Republic of China (1912–1949), during the Chongzhen period (1628–1644), the town area, that is, the area within the “four gates” (si zha yi nei), was populated by approximately 16,000 inhabitants. The town lost a tenth of its population in the early Qing Dynasty, but the number soon recovered and grew to 21,000. In 1853 (Xianfeng 3rd year), a census was carried out, which tallied the population of Shuanglin at 15,000. Taking into account the population changes and migration, we determine that the most reasonable estimate of the population of Shuanglin town in 1776, is 28,000. For details of the population figures, see Appendix 8. In Ningbo fu (prefecture), Guoqusuo, Qiancangsuo, Longshansuo, and Chuanshansuo, where the inspection division was set up, can be all considered as small towns. All these four garrisons became cities that extended for 3–4 li around them, and which were populated by some 3,000 to 4,000 inhabitants. The city around Changguo garrison covered about 1 square kilometer and had about 10,000 residents. Therefore, it can be considered as a medium town. This means we can conclude that Ningbo had 19 town-level districts, including 13 towns and 6 large salt fields. Notice that counting salt fields as towns is important to ensure the accuracy of our estimation of the population of the southeast coastal areas. 2.2 Empirical Population and Model Estimates Here, by leaving out the statistics of small towns, we apply the same measuring standards that we used when calculating the urban population of Jiangsu province. The relationship between the urban population and the population of the three provinces of Jiangsu, Anhui, and Zhejiang in 1910 can be expressed in the following equation: Y  =  0.0932X  −  0.4729 (R^2  =  0.6754). Luzhou, Yingzhou, and Fengyang fu (prefectures) are not included in the estimates regarding Anhui province. Similarly, Hangzhou fu (prefecture) is also left out in the estimates regarding Zhejiang. The empirically confirmed population and the Model Estimates are listed in Table 27. In Table 27, the biggest differences between the empirically confirmed population and the model estimates are found in the statistics of Yanzhou, Shaoxing, and Quzhou. Our investigation suggests that this is fundamentally caused by the abnormally high population numbers of these three fu (prefectures) in 1776 in comparison with their respective numbers in 1910. Therefore, except for Hangzhou, we used the smaller numbers when correcting the statistics of these prefectures. In summary, the population of Zhejiang in 1776 was 2.783 million.

396

Chapter 14

Table 27

Population of towns and cities in Zhejiang province by prefectures in 1776. Unit: 1,000 people

Fu (prefecture)

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference (%)

Correction

Hangzhou Jiaxing Huzhou Yanzhou Shaoxing Ningbo Chuzhou Quzhou Jinhua Wenzhou Taizhou

608 354 236 55 196 178 92 59 193 133 190

249 219 200 118 391 173 80 95 190 154 204

59.0 38.2 15.4 115.2 99.5 2.7 13.2 59.3 1.6 15.5 7.2

608 219 200 55 196 173 80 59 190 133 190

3

Anhui

Due to a lack of any recorded data from 1776, this section adopts an analogical approach to estimate the population of each prefectural city of Anhui province using the 1910 data as the basis for the 1776 urban population. We know that, in 1910, Anqing prefectural city had a population of 138,000. This leads us to estimate that the population in 1776 was 100,000. The population of Yingzhou and Fengyang fu, which was not affected by the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864), remained stable. Therefore, we set their population in 1910 as 53,000 and 28,000, respectively. This allowed us to estimate that, in 1776, the population of the two prefectural cities of Yingzhou and Fengyang was 50,000 and 25,000, respectively. For the other prefectural cities, we set the population at 30,000 each. The data at the county level is more complicated due to the large number of county cities and the variations of their sizes. It is assumed that in areas that experienced the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom War (1851–1864), the population of the county cities in 1776 was the same as in 1910, while in areas that were not damaged by the War, such as the aforementioned Yingzhou, as demonstrated in Chapter 10, there was an average annual growth rate of 4.5‰. That

397

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty Table 28

Population of towns and cities in Anhui province by prefectures in 1776. Unit: /1,000 people

Fu (prefecture)

Empirically confirmed population

Model estimates

Difference (%)

Correction

Guangde Ningguo Chizhou Taiping Huizhou Anqing Luzhou Yingzhou Fengyang Sizhou Chuzhou Hezhou Liu’anzhou

43 110 106 83 85 170 138 147 157 83 76 50 66

57 126 114 81 112 183 134 145 155 85 59 54 80

32.7 14.2 7.4 2.5 32.3 7.8 2.6 1.6 1.1 2.0 22.9 8.0 21.1

43 126 114 81 85 183 134 145 155 85 59 54 66

means the population of the county cities grew by 1.8 times over 134 years. As to Fengyang and Luzhou fu (prefectures), which were partially damaged in the War, the average annual population growth rate during the 134 years was 1‰, causing the population to grow 1.14 times. Considering that there was no large-scale industrial and commercial center in Anhui, we can claim that the situations of fu (prefectures) within the province were similar. Without the need to exclude any prefecture with special situations, we know that the relationship between the urban population of the prefectures and the total population of the prefectures within Anhui province in 1910 was highly correlated and can be described in the following equation: Y = 0.0319 X + 43.237 (R^2 = 0.7113). For the model results, see Table 28. Comparing the aforementioned two methods of calculation, the differences in terms of the urban population in the four fu of Guangde, Huizhou, Chuzhou, and Liu’an were the most significant. Therefore, we chose the smaller numbers in order to be correct. In summary, the urban population of Anhui province in 1776 was 1.329 million.

398 4

Chapter 14

Jiangxi

4.1 Empirical Studies of the Urban Population 4.1.1 Nanchang In terms of the commercial scale, Nanchang is a much smaller city than Nanjing, Suzhou, and Hangzhou, and this smaller size is also reflected in the population. The war in the early Qing Dynasty caused a large number of deaths in the urban population of Nanchang city. As a result, Wucheng replaced Nanchang as the commodity distribution center of Jiangxi. Ji Ying Zhuan, Vol. 1 of Jiangxi Zhongyi Lu edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), depicted the besiege of Nanchang city by the Taiping army. According to Ji Ying, “the people of the inner city were not severely unsettled by today’s fight, but the tens of thousands of households near the city were wiped.” We can, therefore, assume that about 20,000 households were near the city and that the same number of people lived in the city. This is why we estimate that, at least, 40,000 households and about 200,000 inhabitants lived in the urban areas of Nanchang. We estimate that in the late Qianlong period, the urban population of Nanchang was about 150,000. 4.1.2 Capital Cities of Prefectures and Counties of Guangxin Xiangdu, Vol. 2 of Guangxin Fu Records edited in 1783 (Qianlong 48th year) had a far-reaching complete record of yanhu (household) in the urban and rural areas of the counties under Guangxin fu (prefecture): The prefectural city had 11,000 households and the population was about 50,000 including the population of Yushan county which was as high as 16,000. Together with the migrant population, the county could have had as many as 20,000 inhabitants. The prosperity of Yushan is reflected in the following description: “Outside the western county gates, endless ships and horses passed by and more than a thousand shops were set up. Tradesmen from Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong all crossed the mountains in Yushan. They hired porters to transport the goods. There was a lot of hustling and bustling.” Before the opening of the five treaty ports, most of the exported goods from Jiangsu and Zhejiang passed through Yushan to Jiangxi, down via Xinjiang River-Boyang River-Gangjiang River, and to Guangdong after crossing Dayuling Mountain. The exchange of goods between Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong mostly followed the same route. The prosperity of Yushan arose from the transit of goods, which explains why the county had a larger population than the other counties. Qianshan county had as many as 1,800 households and nearly 10,000 inhabitants. Guangfeng, Yiyang, and Guixi counties had more than a thousand households and approximately 6,000 inhabitants each. To relieve the towns from “daozei” (thieves and bandits), the government set up Xing’an county during the Jiajing

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

399

period (1522–1566). However, because of its small size, Xing’an county could not be counted as a city. Apart from Shangrao, the average population of the six counties under Guangxin was about 8,000 each. 4.1.3 Other Prefectural Capitals Guangxin had a population of 50,000 in 1776 but only 28,000 in 1910. Other prefectural cities that had a population of more than 28,000 in 1910 were Ganzhou, Jiujiang, Raozhou, and Nan’an. We set the population of these prefectural cities in 1776 at 50,000 each. Based on our knowledge that, in 1910, the population of Linjiang, Yuanzhou, Fuzhou, and Ji’an was about 26,000 each, we set their population in 1776 at 30,000 each. Considering that Qiangjiang had Zhangshu county, which was a large-sized town, under its jurisdiction, we decided to set the population of the county city, which was also the population of Linjiang prefectural city, only at 15,000. In 1910, Ningdu county city was small with a population of only 14,000; however, it was set up independently from Ganzhou and given jurisdiction, in the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), of three counties—Ningdu, Shicheng, and Ruijin, that had an overall population of around 30,000. For the prefectural cities of Nankang and Jianchang, we estimate that their population in 1776 was around 20,000 each. 4.1.4 Other County Capitals The county cities under Guangxin fu (prefecture) had an average of 8,000 inhabitants each in 1776, and 17,000 each in 1910. We can set the population of each town and city at 12,000 and consider them all as average-level population county cities in the province. Cities and Towns under Guangxin Fu 4.1.5 Hekou town, which was under Qianshan county, was one of the four big towns in Jiangxi province in the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912). According to the records in Qianshan Xian Zhi, we estimate that the town, in its heyday, had a population of about 50,000.12 This estimation is based on the records regarding the town’s size, streets, shops, and other historical descriptions. We cautiously assume that the town’s population would be at the same level as that of a big town in Jiangnan region, meaning the population would be approximately 28,000. After comparing the records in Guangxin Fu Zhi and Daqing Yitong Zhi, both edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), we decide to keep only three inspection stations (xunsi) that were named as fang or zhen (town) in our categorization of the towns, in addition to 12 other towns, including Hekou, Daqiao, and Yangkou, which was mentioned in Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the 12 Zheng, W. (Ed.). (1990). Yanshan Xian Zhi (p. 278). Haikou: Nanhai Publishing Co., Ltd.

400

Chapter 14

Jiaqing period (1796–1820), and Shitang, which was not noted in Daqing Yitong Zhi. According to Guangxin Fu Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), Shitang town was located “30 li southeast of the county, near the borderline of Minyue (Fujian) and geographically dangerous and secluded. It had a large migrant population and only a few local residents.” The town was known for producing paper in the region and according to Zai Yi Zhi, Vol. 41 of Qing Shi Gao, in Daoguang 10th year (1830), a fire in the town destroyed or damaged more than 500 households. 4.1.6 Wucheng In terms of the level of commercial prosperity, Nanchang city was far less prominent than Zhangshu and Wucheng, the former being the distribution center of goods and the latter being the import and export center in Jiangxi. During the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) and the Daoguang period (1782–1850), Wucheng had a population of 100,000 in its heyday.13 By 1936, the city still had approximately 70,000 inhabitants, despite a significant decline in business. We can estimate that its population was around 70,000 in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). 4.1.7 Zhangshu Fu Chunguan, a member of the Ministry of Commerce in the late Qing Dynasty, once commented on the prosperity of Wucheng and Zhangshu town parallelly in its heyday during the Jiaqing and Daoguang periods, “following Jingdezhen town, the second most prosperous cities and towns were Zhangshu of Linjiang fu (prefecture) and Wucheng of Nanchang fu (prefecture).” We can, therefore, assume that the population of Zhangshu could have reached the same level as Wucheng. 4.1.8 Jingdezhen Town According to Vol. 5 of Fuliang Xian Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736– 1796), during the Yongzheng period (1723–1735) and the Qianlong period (1736– 1796), Jingdezhen already had “two or three hundred civilian kiln districts” and “no less than several hundred thousand craftsmen.” According to a Japanese survey conducted at the end of the Qing Dynasty, “the locals said that the population normally exceeded 100,000 and could reach 300,000 in the seasons when the kilns were running. However, even during the kiln opening seasons, the population would be around only 200,000.” Liang Miaotai believes that during the Yongzheng period (1723–1735) and the Qianlong period (1736–1796), the regular and the migrant population of Jingdezhen would be less than

13 Liang, H. (1995). Wu Cheng Shang Zhen Ji Qi Zaoqi Shanghui. Zhong Guo Jingji Shi Yanjiu, (1).

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

401

250,000.14 This is also why Jingdezhen could be considered one of the four big towns, together with Zuxian, Foshan, and Hankou. 4.2 Empirically Confirmed Population and Model Estimates In the mid-Qing Dynasty, when Guangzhou was the only treaty port, Nan’an fu (prefecture), which was located on the Gangjiang River-Dayuling Mountain-Guangzhou route, became especially busy and commercially prosperous. Excluding the four prefectures that were commercially advanced, including Nanchang, Raozhou, Guangxin, and Nan’an, we can use the following equation to demonstrate the relationship between the urban population of the remaining 10 prefectures and the total population of these prefectures: Y = 0.0572 X + 11.352 (R2 = 0.86). This equation is close to that which describes the relationship between the urban and the total prefectural population in Hunan, Hubei, and Jiangxi but excluding Changsha, Hanyang and Wuchang: Y = 0.0549X + 3.53 (R^2 = 0.7175). Based on the data of the urban population of the Jiangxi prefectures from 1910, we come up with the following estimates for 1776 (see Table 29). Table 29

Population of towns and cities in Jiangxi province by prefectures in 1776. Unit: 1,000 people

Prefecture

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference (%)

Correction

Nanchang Nankang Jiujiang Ruizhou Raozhou Guangxin Yuanzhou Linjiang Ji’an Jianchang Fuzhou Nan’an Ningdu Ganzhou

297 56 98 42 377 150 66 79 148 78 90 86 54 146

192 52 68 61 93 76 46 74 166 77 96 38 57 130

35.4 6.3 30.6 45.3 75.3 49.2 30.4 6.0 12.0 1.1 6.3 56.4 6.4 10.9

297 56 98 61 377 150 46 79 148 78 90 86 54 146

14 Liang Miaotai. Ming Qiang Jingdezhen Chengshi Jingji Yanjiu. Nanchang: Jiangxi renmin Publishing House, 1991: 20.

402

Chapter 14

For Nanchang fu (prefecture) estimates, if we subtract the 70,000 people of Wucheng from the empirically confirmed population of Nanchang, our empirical result would be very close to the model result. We consider the empirical data from Raozhou, Guangxin, and Nan’an credible because we believe that, by 1776, the commercial prosperity of Jingdezhen town, Hekou town, Yushan county, and Nankang county had increased the level of urbanization in these three prefectures. It is noteworthy that the discrepancies between the empirical and the estimated data of Ruizhou and Yuanzhou were unexplainably large. Therefore, we decided to use our calculated estimate. In summary, in 1776, the total urban population of Jiangxi was 1.766 million. 5

Hunan and Hubei

5.1 Empirical Studies on the Urban Population 5.1.1 Wuhan According to Vol. 3 of Xiakou Xian Zhi, the population of Hankou town in 1772 (Qianlong 37th year) was 99,000. Presumably, Hanyang prefectural city had 50,000 inhabitants, and Wuchang city, which was slightly larger, had 75,000 inhabitants. The total population was around 224,000. Notice that, as in Appendix 8, Hankou and Hanyang together formed Hanyang prefectural city while Wuchang consisted only of Wuchang prefectural city. In his research, Ren Fang (2003) cited Hubei governor Yan Sisheng’s report to the emperor in 1745 (Qianlong 10th year) saying that the region had “more than 200,000 hukou (inhabitants).”15 This number, certainly, included both Hanyang and Wuchang. 5.1.2 Changsha In the absence of any credible data, we set the urban population of Changsha in 1776 at 130,000 based on the demographics of Nanchang, the capital of Jiangxi province. We know that, in 1910, the urban population of Changsha was 210,000. That means the average annual growth rate of Changsha’s urban population within the 134-year period was about 3.6‰—a reasonable number. 5.1.3 Prefectural City of Hengzhou According to Vol. 13 of Hengzhou Fu Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), there were approximately 20,000 inhabitants “within the city and outside the city” (cheng nei cheng wai) of Hengyang county. In the meantime, we speculate that Qingquan county, which was east to the prefectural 15 Ren, F. (2003). Ming Qing Changjiang Zhongyou Shi Zhen Jingji Yanjiu (p. 323). Wuhan: Wuhan daxue Publishing House.

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

403

city and near the Xiangjiang River, was commerically prosperous. At that time, Qingquan county was described as “accessible from all directions, attractive to traders and travellers who stayed and lived around the city. On the east bank of the Xiangjiang River are rows after rows of houses, accommodating no less than several thousands of households.”16 We can, therefore, estimate that the population of Qiangquan county was more than that of Hengyang. This means Hengyang prefectural city had at least 50,000 inhabitants, having as large a population as Jiangxi prefectural city. 5.1.4 Chenzhou City At a time when Guangzhou was the only treaty port, Chenzhou was an important city on the trading route between Hunan and Guangzhou. During the Xianfeng period (1851–1861) and the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), Chenzhou city had approximately 700 shops. After 1884 (Guangxu 10th year), the prosperity of the trading route gradually declined leading to a decline of the number of shops to only about 500 in 1911. We know that, in 1907, the population of Chenzhou city was 29,000.17 At that rate, the urban population of Chenzhou during the Xianfeng period and the Tongzhi period (1862–1874) would have been around 41,000. We estimate that the urban population of Chenzhou in 1776 was 40,000. 5.1.5 Guiyang City According to Guiyang County Zhi, in 1818 (Jiaqing 23rd year), the population of the inner city and nearby area was 21,000, and in 1866 (Tongzhi 5th year), the population was 10,000. We also know that, in 1948, the population was 12,000. Considering that the urban area of Guiyang fu (prefecture) was 0.8 square kilometers,18 we estimate that the urban population of Guiyang was 10,000. 5.1.6 Other Prefectural Capitals Applying the same approach, we estimate the population of each prefectural city in 1776 based on their sizes within the two provinces. For example, the population of Baoqing prefectural city in Hunan in 1910 was 56,000. Assuming that the average annual growth rate was 3‰, we can infer that in 1776, Baoqing had 40,000 inhabitants. It should be noted that the population of Changde and Yuezhou prefectural cities was about the same. That means we can set the 16 Chen, S. (The Qianlong period 1736–1796). Chong Rong San Cheng Lou Ji, “Yi Wen Zhi”, Qingquan Xian Zhi (Vol. 31). 17 Chenzhou Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1994). Chenzhou Shi Zhi (pp. 71–73, 124, 410). Hefei: Huangshan shushe. 18 Guiyang xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1994). Guiyang Xian Zhi (p. 46, p. 82). Beijing: Zhongguo wen shi Publishing House.

404

Chapter 14

population of Chenzhou around 30,000. In 1776, the population of the prefectural cities of Lizhou, Yuanzhou, Chenzhou, and Yongzhou, was the same as in 1910, with only 5,000, 9,000, 11,000 and 18,000 inhabitants, respectively. 5.1.7 Other County Cities and Towns In 1910, among the prefectures under Hunan province, the county population of Changsha and Changde fu (prefectures) were the largest on average with as high as 25,000 and 29,000 inhabitants, respectively. Next to them was Yuezhou fu (prefecture), which had 19,000 inhabitants. Each county in Hengzhou, Baoqing, Yongzhou, and Lizhou had an average population was between 10,000 and 16,000. As for the counties in other prefectures, the average population was between 4,000 and 9,000. Taking the aforementioned population scales as a reference, we can estimate that, in 1776, there were about 10,000 people in an average county city in Changsha. The average population of the county city of Hengzhou, Baoqing, Yuezhou, and Lizhou fu (prefectures) was 8,000. After the opening of the port in 1906, the population of Changde city increased sharply thereby increasing the population growth in the entire county. Therefore, we set the average population of the counties at 8,000. We estimate that the counties of Yongzhou, Chenzhou, and Yuanzhou had an average of 5,000 inhabitants, while in Chenzhou and Guiyang, there was an average of 4,000 inhabitants. The population of medium-sized cities and towns was 3,000 each. 5.1.8 Counties under Yunyang Fu Vol. 2 of Yunyang Zhi edited in the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) contains records of the number of households (in the form of baojia system) of the individual counties. The proportions of the following four counties against the whole in terms of the number of households ( jia), Yunxian (the capital county), Fangxian, Yunxi, and Zhuxi, were 2.1%, 2.5%, 5%, and 5.6% respectively. Using 1776 as the standard time point, the population of these four county cities was 3,000. 3,000. 6,000, and 4,000 each, and 4,000 on average. With an average annual growth rate of 4‰, we estimated the average population of the prefectural and county-level cities in 1776 based on the data of 1910. We found that the data of 1910 was 1.7 times that of 1776 in terms of the average population at both the prefectural and the county levels. 5.1.9 Commercial Cities and Towns According to Vol. 6 of Hanyang Xian Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), Caidianzhen town “had two streets, one from north to south, one from east to west, on both sides of which were thousands of shops. There were also numerous clothing and fish traders in town. This was a truly prosperous

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

405

town connecting the southern and northern areas.” According to Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), Caidian also had a patrol division. If we assume that the “thousands” in the records meant only 2,000, we can estimate that the population of Caidian was approximately 10,000. Another patrol division mentioned in Daqing Yitong Zhi edited the Qianlong period (1736–1796) was Herong town under Dangyang county, Jingmen fu (prefecture). In 1764 (Qianlong 29th year), Li Shiyao, governor-general of Huguang, wrote in his report to the emperor that “the land produces silk and cotton, merchants and tradesmen gather here, and the population is dense, having thousands of shops and residential houses.”19 It seems Li included both the merchants and tradesmen and the other regular residents. We treat it as a medium city or town (See Appendix 8). Vol. 9 of Jiangling Xian Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796) contained the business records of five cities—Shashi, Haoxue, Caoshi, Mituosi, and Shaojiwa. It is said that, in Shashi, “goods are abundant, there are hundreds of different types and ships gather, tens of thousands of them”, and that in Haoxue, which was renamed Hexue town in Qianlong 54th year (1789), according to the order from higher authorities, “tradesmen and merchants gathered even though the city was not as prosperous as Shashi.” If we consider Shashi as a big town with 10,000 inhabitants, we can consider Haoxue a medium-sized town with a population of around 5,000. According to Vol. 19 of Jingzhou Fu Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796), “Shashi and Caoshi are the two biggest towns in Jiangling,” and we also find that they were listed as medium-sized towns in Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796). Both Mituosi and Shaojiwa were average-sized towns. It is worth mentioning that some “cities” in Hunan were, indeed, mediumsized towns. This claim is backed by the commercial conditions of these cities documented in Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796). For example, it was recorded that Zaotou city under Hengzhou fu (prefecture) was “located eight li to the south of the county, it produced coal and became a trading center thanks to its accessibility in all directions.” There was also Shangbao city, which “had more than 30 tin mines.” There were 68 cities in Changsha fu (prefecture), among which were Hongchuanbu and Heqitou characterized by “tradesmen and merchant gatherings, hustling and bustling.” They can be considered as cities or towns. We will not discuss the other cities in detail and, like in previous sections, we only list the number of small-sized cities and towns, instead of calculating their population.

19 Fang, X. & Jing, J. & Wei, J. (Ed.). (2000). Qing Dai Jingji Juan, Zhongguo Jingji Tongshi (mid-volume) (p. 1130). Beijing: Jingji ribao Publishing House.

406

Chapter 14

5.2 Empirical Population and Model Estimates Except for Hanyang and Changsha, the provincial capitals, we can demonstrate the relationship between the population of the cities and towns and the population of the individual prefectures, using the equation: Y = 0.0632X − 7.5589 (R^2 = 0.6912). Based on this model, we came up with the figures for the population of cities and towns under the individual prefectures in the two provinces in 1776. See Table 30. In terms of the population of Changsha, the provincial capital of Hunan, our empirical estimate is larger than the model result. It is self-evident that the former is more credible. As for the regions inhabited by ethnic minorities, the differences between the empirical and the model results are significant. Considering that the level of urbanization of these regions in the mid-Qing Dynasty was low, lower than the overall level, on which we base our model, we decide to keep the empirical results. For the other regions, we use the model results. To sum up, in 1776, the urban population of Hunan province was 784,000. It is also no surprise that the gap between the estimated and model results for Hanyang, the provincial capital of Hubei, was also significant. We find that the empirical urban population of Xiangyang and Jingmen fu (prefectures) in 1776 are larger than those modeled. In the case of Xiangyang, the discrepancy Table 30

Population of towns and cities in Hunan and Hubei provinces by prefectures in 1776. Unit: /1,000 people

Fu (prefecture)

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference (%)

Correction

Changsha Hengzhou Baoqing Yuezhou Changde Lizhou Yongzhou Chenzhou Guiyang Yongshun Chenzhou Yuanzhou Total

259 104 72 64 64 45 56 40 22 0 26 19 771

209 109 76 70 60 46 81 42 38 24 36 27 817

19.5 4.4 5.0 9.3 6.5 1.9 45.0 4.5 73.1

259 109 76 70 60 46 56 42 22 0 26 19 784

39.9 43.2 5.9

407

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

can be explained by the commercial prosperity of the prefecture and the Han River Basin, and in the case of Jingmen, by the rise of Shayang town after the mid-Qing Dynasty, which raised the overall level of urbanization. The urbanization of Huangzhou fu (prefecture) also increased in the late Qing Dynasty. However, the level of urbanization of Shinan fu (prefecture) was consistently low, which could explain the discrepancy between our estimate and the model result. To sum up, the urban population of Hubei in 1776 was 1.137 million. 6

Fujian and Guangdong

6.1 Empirical Studies on the Urban Population 6.1.1 Fuzhou According to Vol. 8 of Fuzhou Fu Zhi, from Yongzheng 12th year (1734) on, two counties near Fuzhi prefectural city both had 225 pu within the county cities and 850 dun outside the county cities. Notice that both pu and dun are administrative units under tu. The urban pu accounted for 23.1% of the enitre pu and dun. If we assume that this proportion remained unchanged, we can estimate that the population of Minhou county in 1829 (Daoguang 9th year) was about 937,000 and in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), it was 814,000. In the same

Fu (prefecture)

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference (%)

Hanyang Huangzhou Wuchang De’an Jingzhou Anlu Jingmen Yichang Shinan Xiangyang Yunyang

214 118 197 79 99 37 47 38 18 116 34

188 184 154 63 92 50 16 35 42 77 38

12.1 56.0 21.9 19.5 7.5 35.5 65.1 8.3 136.2 33.3 10.5

218 181 151 115 131 48 47 32 39 140 35

Total

996

939

70.5

1137

Correction

408

Chapter 14

year, meanwhile, the population of Fuzhou city was about 195,000. The same document indicates that the other counties inherited the bao and tu system of the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). However, unlike Minhou county, they no longer kept pu and dun units under tu. This means we cannot apply the same approach to them. 6.1.2 Xiamen According to Lujiang Zhi edited in Qianlong 34th year (1769), there were 16,000 households and about 80,000 inhabitants on Xiamen island and they were all considered as the urban population.20 The size of the urban population of Xiamen was about the same as that of a regular county-level city. 6.1.3 Other Prefectures Considering that Fujian suffered severe damages during the Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864), it is unreasonable to estimate the population of 1910 based on the population figures of 1776. We know that Quanzhou city had a population of 87,000 in 1910, therefore, based on this figure, we estimate the population to be 70,000 in 1776. The urban population of Tingzhou was 40,000. Given that in the mid-Qing Dynasty, the salt and grain trade in Fujian and Jiangxi entered the golden age, we can set the population of Tingzhou prefectural city in 1776 at 50,000. For Zhangzhou prefectural city, we set the population at 50,000. With reference to the population size of other prefectures in 1910, we set the population of the following six prefectural cities Funing, Jianning, Shaowu, Yanping, Xinghua, and Taiwan in 1776 at 20,000, and Longyan and Yongchun at 10,000. 6.1.4 Other County Cities and Towns In addition to Putian county, there was only Xianyou county under Xinghua fu (prefecture). In 1910, Xianyou county city had a population of 22,000, about the same as the average population of a county under Quanzhou fu (prefecture). For other prefectures such as Fuzhou, Jianning, Tingzhou, and Zhangzhou, the average population of each county city was approximately 12,000. For the county cities in Funing and Yanping fu (prefectures), the population was approximately 7,000. Also, we set the average population of each county-level city under Yanping, which was seriously damaged by Taiping Heavenly War (1851–1864), at 12,000. In the three prefectures of Yongchun, Longyan, and Shaowu, the average population of each county city was 22,000, 30,000, and 50,000, respectively.

20 Xiamen shi difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (2004). Xiamen Shi Zhi (p. 205). Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House.

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

409

6.1.5 Guangzhou In the existing literature, Foshan was often considered a city with the same population as Guangzhou. In some literature, it is even claimed that the population of Foshan was larger. In fact, in the late Qing Dynasty, Guangzhou, as China’s only trade port, was particularly prosperous. That means its population could not have been smaller than that of Foshan. In 1918, the urban population of Guangzhou reached 1.549 million. If we assume that the average annual growth rate of the urban population of Guangzhou within the 142 years was as high as 7‰, we can determine that in 1776, (Qianlong 41st year) its population would approach 575,000—similar to that of Suzhou and Hangzhou in the same period. 6.1.6 Foshan Foshan was the most important industrial and commercial town in Lingnan, one of the four famous towns in the early Qing Dynasty. According to Vol. 3 of Foshan Zhong Yi Xiang Zhi edited in 1750 (Qianlong 15th year), there were over 30,000 households and several hundreds of thousands of people. If we assume that there were 35,000 households, the population of Foshan was about 175,000. Given that there were also “tens of thousands a day” of inflowing migrants and people who lived on the boats, the town’s population might have been larger. Luo Yixing claims, citing Chongxiu Foshan Jingtang Bei Ji edited in Qianlong 53rd year (1788), that there were “yanhuo (household) of more than ten thousand,”21 which could have included the population of the surrounding countryside. After comparing the numbers, we find the data cited in the former more accurate. Zhaoqing Prefectural Capital 6.1.7 According to Vol. 3 of Zhaoqing Fu Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), Gaoyao county, which was near Zhaoqing, had altogether 7 tu in the inner and outer county city and on the eastern and western sides of the city. It also had 92 tu in the rural areas. The urban tu accounted for 7.1% of the total tu. We know that in 1818 (Jiaqing 23rd year), the whole county had 202,000 inhabitants, while in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) it had a population of 178,000. Based on this ratio, we understand that the urban county population was approximately 13,000. 21 Luo, Y. (1994). Ming qing Foshan Jingji Fazhan Yu Shehui Bianqian (pp. 275–277). Guangzhou: Guangdong renmin Publishing House. Luo Yixing, based on his cited data, claims that in the early Qing Dynasty, Foshan town took up “around thirty-four li,” which was about 24 square kilometers. Considering the high population density indicated by Luo, we estimate that there were probably 10,000 inhabitants per square kilometer.

410

Chapter 14

6.1.8 Other Prefectural Capitals In 1910, Gaoyao county had 16,000 inhabitants living in the urban city and towns and about 14,000 inhabitants in the county seat. The counties and towns under the jurisdiction of Zhaoqing fu (prefecture) had a population of 14,000 on average. We find that all the relevant data were believable. Therefore, based on the population relationship between the prefectural cities in 1910, we can determine that the average urban population of the three prefectures of Zhaoqing, Luoding, and Nanxiong at 12,000, the four prefectures of Shaozhou, Gaozhou, Leizhou, and Lianzhou at 10,000, Lianzhou at 2,000, and Huizhou, Chaozhou, Jiaying at 20,000. 6.1.9 Other County Cities and Towns For the population of the county-level cities, we set the four prefectural capital cities of Guangzhou, Zhaoqing, Huizhou, and Chaozhou at 12,000 each; Jiayingzhou, Gaozhou, Leizhou, and Lianzhou at 80,000; Qiongzhou at 2,000; and the rest at 5,000. For details, see Appendix 8. Table 31

Population of towns and cities in Fujian and Guangdong provinces by prefectures in 1776. Unit: /1,000 people

Fu (prefecture)

Funing Fuzhou Jianning Shaowu Tingzhou Yanping Longyan Yongchun Xinghua Quanzhou Zhangzhou Taiwan

Total

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference (%)

Correction

58 301 122 41 134 60 16 16 40 200 134 68

52 235 104 49 118 67 15 28 32 208 285 80

10.7 21.9 15.0 18.8 11.6 12.5 6.1 74.2 19.8 4.1 112.9 17.7

52 301 104 49 118 67 15 28 32 208 134 80

1,190

1,274

7.0

1,188

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

411

6.2 Empirically Confirmed Population and Model Estimates We use the equation Y = 0.1053 X − 14.768 (R2 = 0.8728) to demonstrate the relationship between the urban population and the prefectural population of Fujian in 1910, excluding Fujian fu (prefecture). For Guangdong in 1910, the equation, after excluding Guangzhou and Chaozhou, is: Y = 0.0538 X − 3.1613 (R2 = 0.8074). We use these two equations to estimate the urban population of these two provinces in 1776. See table 31. In Fujian, the biggest difference between the empirical population and the model estimates was in Zhangzhou fu (prefecture), where the model estimates were significantly higher than the empirical population. The discrepancy was caused by the unreasonably high population figures of Zhangzhou in 1776. As a result of this, we utilize our empirical estimate for Zhangzhou. Guangdong, Guangzhou, Zhaoqing, and Huizhou had a higher empirical population than the model estimates, and, for Gaozhou, Lianzhou, and Qiongzhou, it was the other way round. The first three prefectures were industrially and commercially developed, while the economies of the latter three were based on

Fu (prefecture)

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference (%)

Correction

Guangzhou Zhaoqing Luoding Fogang Huizhou Chaozhou Jiaying Shaozhou Nanxiong Lianzhou Lianshan Gaozhou Leizhou Lianzhou Qiongzhou Total

899 161 22 0 128 131 52 40 17 6 7 55 26 26 34 1,604

282 88 23 0 78 113 62 49 6 11 0 107 28 41 57 945

68.7 45.5 5.7 0 39.3 13.8 19.6 21.6 62.9 91.2 106.7 94.1 8.9 59.6 67.9 41.1

899 161 22 0 128 131 52 40 17 6 0 55 26 26 34 1,597

412

Chapter 14

agriculture. After the comparison, except for Lianshanting, we decided to adopt the empirical data. In total, in 1776, the urban population of the two provinces was 1.188 million and 1.57 million, respectively. 7

Sichuan

Wei yingtao, based on Baxian Baojia Yan Ji Nanding Nvkou Hua Ming Zong Ce, notes in his research, that in 1812, Chongqing city had 17,750 households and 65,286 inhabitants with an average of 3.6 persons per household. If we assume a person-per-household ratio of 4.5, then the population of Chongqing was approximately 80,000. If this is the situation, how then do we estimate the population of Chongqing in 1776? In terms of the inner provinces, the average annual population growth rate from 1776 to 1910 was mostly between 4‰ and 5‰. Considering that Sichuan had been the destination of immigrants, the rate might have been 7‰–8‰. This is also evidenced by our estimate of the data, presented below, of the urban population of Sichuan. We, therefore, set the average annual population growth rate of Chongqing from 1776 to 1812 at 8‰, considering that the population increased 1.33 times within the period. Based on those estimates, the population of Chongqing in 1776 would have been approximately 60,000.22 For a detailed investigation of the population of the cities and towns of the prefectures of Sichuan province, see Chapter 18. At an average annual growth rate of 8‰, the population increased by 290% from 1776 to 1910. Based on this growth, we estimate the urban population of the Sichuan prefectures in 1776 and find that the population of urban Chengdu in 1776 was 47,000—close to the population of urban Chongqing. 7.1 Empirically Confirmed Population and Model Estimates We use the equation Y = 0.0671X + 1.2928 (R2 = 0.94) to demonstrate the relationship between the urban population and the prefectural population of Sichuan in 1910. However, in our estimate, we exclude the highly commercialized Chengdu and Chongqing regions and the commercially under-developed Ningyuan. We determine the growth rate of the urban population of Sichuan in the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) based on both the empirical and the model results. Relatively speaking, the less populated a region, the bigger the difference 22 Wei, Y. (Ed.). (1991). Jindai Chongqing Chengshi Shi (pp. 394–397). Chengdu: Sichuan daxue Publishing House.

Population of towns and cities in Sichuan province by prefectures in 1776. Unit: /1,000 people

Chongqing Luzhou Xuyongting Shunqing Tongchuan Zizhou Baoning Youyang Suiding Taipingting Kuizhou Zhongzhou

219 46 26 69 97 57 50 26 56 6 57 29

166 35 15 82 79 43 53 31 48 8 63 33

24.1 25.2 42.6 19.6 18.1 24.7 6.3 22.9 13.2 24.6 10.5 12.7

219 35 15 82 79 43 53 31 48 8 63 33

Shizhuting Mianzhou Chengdu Qiongzhou Long’an Meizhou Jiading Xuzhou Yazhou Ningyuan Maozhou

1 36 137 17 18 13 64 81 0 0 0

6 44 122 19 18 23 58 89 34 56 2

511.4 22.0 10.5 11.0 0 72.7 10.1 8.9

1 44 137 19 18 23 58 89 0 0 0

Fu (prefecture) Empirical Model Difference Correction Fu (prefecture) Empirical Model Difference Correction population estimates (%) population estimates (%)

Table 32

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

413

414

Chapter 14

between the two results. For regions such as Shizhu, Yazhou, Ningyuan, and Maozhou, the empirical urban population was either zero or less than 1,000. We, therefore, use the empirical results for these regions and used the model results for the rest of the regions. In total, we determine that the urban population of Sichuan was 1.097 million in 1776. 8

Guangxi

According to Hou Xuanjie, the population of Guilin city in 1906 was as high as 80,000.23 In the same study, Hou mentions that during the Jiaqing period (1796–1820), the urban area of Guilin expanded over 3 square kilometers. According to Lingui Xian Zhi, during the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), merchants across the country arrived, and streets and alleys were constructed all over the county and beyond. This influx increased the population to 30,000.24 These figures depict the population situation towards the end of the Qing Dynasty. We know that in 1910, Liuzhou prefectural city had 36,000 inhabitants, Wuzhou 35,000, Pingle, Xunzhou, and Yulin each had 20,000 inhabitants while Qingyuan 14,000, Zhen’an, Taiping, and other regions each had 2,000 inhabitants. In 1910, the population of Nanning prefectural city had up to 62,000 inhabitants—a direct result of the opening of the port. It should be noted that prior to the opening of the port, the urban population could not have exceeded 30,000. If we assume that the average annual growth rate of the urban population from 1776 to 1910 was 4‰, then the discrepancies between our empirical estimates and the model results would be significant. However, if we set the ratio at 7‰, the urban population in 1910 would be 2.55 times more than the population of 1776. For the population of the individual prefectural cities and towns, see Table 13-14. 8.1 Empirically Confirmed Population and Model Estimates We use the equation Y  =  0.0625X  −  25.236 (R2  =  0.7813) to demonstrate the relationship between the urban population and the prefectural population of Guangxi province in 1910. However, our estimate does not include the commercially underdeveloped Si’en fu (prefecture). This is how we obtain our model results. For the model results, see Table 33. 23 Hou, X. (2007). Xinan Bianjiang Chengshi Fazhan De Quyu Yanjiu: Yi Qingdai Guangxi Chengshi Wei Zhongxin (p. 83). Doctoral dissertation of Sichuan University. 24 Compilation Committee of Lingui Records (Ed.). (1996). Lingui Xian Zhi (pp. 41–42). Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House.

Population of towns and cities in Guangxi province by prefectures in 1776. Unit: /1,000 people

Guilin Liuzhou Qingyuan Si’en Sicheng Pingle

29 36 10 1 1 27

28 20 15 31 0 18

4.3 44.5 50.3 2562.8 100.0 34.1

28 20 15 1 1 18

Wuzhou Xunzhou Nanning Taiping Zhen’an Yulin

25 23 34 13 5 16

18 16 24 2 0 18 12.8

27.3 31.3 29.4 87.4

18 16 24 2 0 18

Fu (prefecture) Empirical Model Difference Correction Fu (prefecture) Empirical Model Difference Correction population estimates (%) population estimates (%)

Table 33

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

415

416

Chapter 14

We find that it is by setting the average annual growth rate of the urban population in Guangxi from 1776 to 1910 unreasonably high at 7‰ that our empirical results finally get close to the model results. Therefore, we decided to use our model results to determine that in 1776, the urban population of Guangxi was 161,000. 9

Guizhou

9.1 Empirically Confirmed Urban Population 9.1.1 Guiyang Provincial Capital According to Vol. 44 of Guiyang Fu Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), the six urban bao of Guiyang had a total of 12,546 households, 60,576 inhabitants, and an average person per household of 4.8. If we assume that the average annual growth rate was 7‰, then the resident and migrant population of Guiyang city in 1776 was 40,000. Zunyi Prefectural Capital 9.1.2 According to Vol. 12 of Zunyi Fu Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), “a rough calculation of the population of Zunyi county indicates that the inner and outer prefectural city was inhabited by several hundreds of thousands of people living in some ten thousand households.” If we assume that there were 12,000 households, then the population was approximately 60,000. This number is way smaller than the hundreds of thousands mentioned above. We also take into consideration that, back in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the population was approximately 40,000. 9.1.3 Dading Prefectural Capital According to Vol. 40 of Dading Fu Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), there were 2,485 Han households with an adult population of 12,628 and underage male and female residents. If we assume that the average annual growth rate was 7‰, in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), then the population was approximately 8,000. 9.1.4 Xingyi Prefectural Capital In the Daoguang period (1821–1850), Anlong county near Xingyi prefectural city had almost ten thousand residents and it was prosperous due to the trades and travels.25 We set the urban population in 1776 at 8,000. 25 Compilation Committee of Guizhou Anlong Records (Ed.). (1992). Anlong Xian Zhi (pp. 133–136, 346–347, 475). Guiyang: Guizhou renmin Publishing House.

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

417

In 1910, the population of Anshun and Sinan prefectural cities was 20,000 and 14,000 inhabitants, respectively. If we assume that the average growth rate was 7‰, then the population was 8,000 and 6,000 respectively. We have deduced the population of the other places based on this assumption. 9.1.5 Sizhou Prefectural Capital According to Vol. 6 of Qian Nan Zhi Fang Ji Lue, Sizhou fu (prefecture) governed four si, which formed no city having “less than one hundred households near the prefectural city.” These figures of Sizhou cannot be used for reference given that they are not as credible as the 5,000 inhabitants of Rongjiang county under Liping fu (prefecture) from the Yongzheng period (1723–1735). 9.1.6 County Cities under Guiyang Fu According to Vol. 44 of Guiyang Fu Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), the urban demographics of Datang fu (prefecture) comprised of 441 households and 2,609 residents, 743 and 4576 for Changzhaiting; 1,143 households and 4,631 residents for Guangshun prefectural city; and 1,405 households and 6,812 residents for Longli county. In total, these four counties had 3,732 households and 18,628 residents, an average of five persons per household, and a ratio that falls within our range. It also means that there were 4,657 residents per county. That means in 1776, (Qianlong 41st year) there were about 4,000 residents. Based on our knowledge that, in 1910, the county-level cities and towns under Guiyang fu (prefecture) had 4,000 residents, we set the population in 1776 at 3,000. We have applied the same estimation model for the urban population of counties with 4,000 or more residents in 1910. Counties under Dading Fu 9.1.7 According to Vol. 40 of Dading Fu Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821– 1850), there were 775 households and 32,30 adult and underage male and female residents living in and near the urban areas of Pingyuan county. The population numbers were fewer than in the county governed by Guiyang fu (prefecture). The same source also mentioned that Bijie county had 3,225 Han households and a population of 17,078 inhabitants meaning that its population was larger than that of the prefectural city. According to Vol. 3 of Qian Nan Zhi Fang Ji Lue, in Bijie, “the factories transport the led, which was carried by the workers on their back across the county border, to the mouth of the Yongning River. The residents gather here, more Han than ethnic minorities.” The population condition of Bijie was unique, therefore, we set the population of the other three counties at 3,000. If the population of Bijie, which is 15,000, is included, we arrive at a total population of 24,000 inhabitants. In 1910, the average population of each county under Dading fu (prefecture) was 15,000,

418

Chapter 14

which makes a total of 60,000. If we assume that the average annual growth rate was 7‰, then the urban population of these four counties in 1776 was 24,000. 9.1.8 Rongjiang County We set the inner city population of Rongjiang in 1730 (Yongzheng 8th year) at 5,000, including 3,000 members of the military and 2,000 civilians.26 We also consider this to be the population figures of 1776. 9.2 Empirically Confirmed Population and Model Estimates We use the equation Y = 0.037X − 2.824 (R2 = 0.9604) to demonstrate the relationship between the urban population and the prefectural population of Guizhou province, excluding Guiyang fu (prefecture) in 1910. This enables us to obtain our model results which are presented in Table 34. In 1910, the population of Renhuai county was only between 1,000 and 2,000 inhabitants. Considering that the largest town in the county was the famous wine-making town of Maotai, we estimate that in 1776 the county population was under 1,000. Sizhou prefectural city (see above), it should be noted, had identical demographics. In 1776, the two county cities under Tongren fu (prefecture) had a total of 5,000 inhabitants. At the end of the Qing Dynasty, merchants from provinces including Jiangxi, Hubei, Hunan, Guangdong, Guangxi, and Sichuan settled in Tongren, meaning that the local population included a significant number of immigrant tradesmen. In the meantime, we can confirm that Jiangkou county, which was located at the intersection of the salt transporting routes from Jiangsu and Sichuan provinces, witnessed the prosperity of various trades in its inner rivers and the mining industry. All these activities make us believe that the urban population in 1776 was larger than our estimate of 1,000 based on the totality of the population in the region. That explains why we consider the empirically confirmed figure. The case of Songtaoting, also known as Songtao county, was similar in that during the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), merchants from other provinces came to the county to set up and expand their businesses thereby increasing the urban population to 4,000. Theoretically, in the mid-Qing Dynasty, the population ought to have been smaller. The reason why the empirically confirmed population of Dading fu (prefecture) is smaller than the model result is due to the long-lasting prosperity of Bijie, which was 26

Compilation Committee of Guizhou Rongjiang Records (Ed.). (1999). Rongjiang Xian Zhi (p. 9). Guiyang: Guizhou renmin Publishing House.

Population of towns and cities in Guizhou province by prefectures in 1776. Unit: /1,000 people

Guiyang Anshun Pingyue Duyun Zunyi Renhuaiting Sinan Shiqian

58 23 8 19 55 0 15 3

24 20 8 11 27 0 15 2

59.4 14.8 7.2 40.1 50.3 0 2.5 39.6

58 23 8 19 55 0 15 3

Songtaoting Tongren Sizhou Zhenyuan Liping Dading Xingyi Pu’an

2 5 0 15 8 32 14 0

1 1 0 15 8 24 8 1

63.8 83.1 0 0.5 9.4 25.3 43.8 0

2 5 0 15 8 32 14 0

Fu (prefecture) Empirical Model Difference Correction Fu (prefecture) Empirical Model Difference Correction population estimates (%) population estimates (%)

Table 34

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

419

420

Chapter 14

located on the route from Sichuan to Yunnan. In 1910, the county population reached an astounding 26,000. We sum up by maintaining that, in 1776, the urban population of Guizhou province was 259,000. 10

Yunnan

10.1 Empirical Studies on the Urban Population 10.1.1 Kunming According to recent studies, most of the residents in the city of Kunming during the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) were officials who lived with their families and worked in the government or other public agencies. After the Revolt of the Three Feudatories (san fan zhi luan), the city was open to receiving residents who were common merchants and civilians, most of whom still chose to live outside of the city. They formed business districts of more than ten streets outside of the southern, western, and eastern gates.27 These people, plus those who lived inside the city, constituted a population of up to 20,000. 10.1.2 Dongchuan Prefectural Capital In 1761 (Qianlong 26th year), Dongchuan fu (prefecture) had 12,803 residents and a population of 2,404 migrants resident in the mining areas. If we count the migrant population as part of the urban population and assume an average of 5 people per household, then the urban population of Dongchuan in 191028 was 12,000. 10.1.3 Yongchang Prefectural Capital Baoshan was commercially prosperous during the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912). According to Chong Xiu Zhen Wu Li Jin Gong De Bei edited in 1832 (Daoguang 12th year), there were 90 business (shop) contributors. Until 1931, this number did not change.29 According to Chapter 15 of this book, in 1910, each shop was believed to contain 90 inhabitants. Therefore, we know that the urban population of Baoshan in 1776 was 80,000. Similarly, we can estimate that the population of the prefectural cities of Lin’an, Qujing, Dali, Lijiang, Zhaotong, Chengjiang, Chuxiong, and Guangxi in 27 Xie, B. & Li, J. (2009). Kunming Chengshi Shi (Vol. 1) (pp. 57–58). Kunming: Yunnan daxue Publishing House. 28 Yunnan sheng Dongchuan zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1995). Dongchuan Shi Zhi (p. 717). Kunming: Yunnan renmin Publishing House. 29 Yunan sheng Baoshan shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Baoshan Shi Zhi (pp. 84–85). Kunming: Yunan minzu Publishing House.

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

421

1776 was about the same as in 1910. In 1910, the population of Jianshui county city, namely Lin’an prefectural city, was 26,000, which made it the largest prefectural city, second only to Kunming. It had a long commercial history. In addition, most of Yunnan suffered a double blow from war and plague, which led to a smaller prefectural urban population in 1910 than in 1776. Besides, in 1776, Jingdong, Menghua, Tengyue, Pu’er, Kaihua, and other prefectures each had only 1 county. In our calculation of the urban population in 1910, we consider that their urban population increased because of the establishment of new counties. Therefore, in 1776, we set the population of each prefectural city at 1,000. The situation of Kaihua fu (prefecture) was different. Because of the establishment of Hekou city as a trading port to cater to business with Vietnam, the prefectural population reached 18,000 in 1910. However, excluding Hekou, the population of Kaihua, in 1910, was only 4,000. As for the other cities and towns, we estimate that the population was around 5,000. The urban population of Yongbeiting was only zero. 10.1.4 Yuanjiang County Capital During the Qianlong period (1736–1796) and the Daoguang period (1821–1850), the county city had “three to four thousand households (yanhu), many of which were better off.” Therefore, we assume that the household number was 3,000 and the population was 15,000. After the revolt of the Hui people, the population fell sharply. In 1949, the county city had fewer than 900 households and 3,000 residents.30 10.1.5 Dayao County Capital According to Vol. 3 of Dayao Xian Zhi edited in the Daoguang period (1821–1850), the five streets near the Dayao county city had 2,845 residents. The number in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year) probably declined to only 2,500. Therefore, we assume that in 1910, the population of the county city was still 3,000. During the Tongzhi period (1862–1874) and the Guangxu period (1875–1908), Chuxiong fu (prefecture), was severely hit by both a war and a plague. Therefore, we assume that the population of the county city from the Jiaqing period (1796–1820) to the Xianfeng period (1851–1861) was larger. Due to the inability to calculate the urban population loss in individual counties resulting from the war and the plague, we cannot estimate the population recovery speed during the post-war and the post-plague period. Therefore, 30 Yunnan sheng Yuanjiang Hani zu Yi zu Dai zu zizhi xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Yuanjiang Hani Zu Yi Zu Dai Zu Zizhi Xian Zhi (p. 66, 263). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

422

Chapter 14

we assume that the population of most of the county cities in Yunan from 1776 to 1910 remained unchanged. 10.1.6 Commercial Cities and Towns Daqing Yitong Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736–1796) did not contain the population records of Yunnan cities and towns. Therefore, we assume that in 1776, Yunnan had no city or town. 10.2 Empirically Confirmed Population and Model Estimates We use the equation Y = 0.0545X − 6.9667 (R2 = 0.9087) to demonstrate the relationship between the urban population and the prefectural population in 1910 Yunnan province, excluding the provincial capital of Kunming fu (prefecture) and Lin’an fu (prefecture that was particularly prosperous because of the China-Vietnam trading. This leads to our model results presented in Table 35. As for other provinces, a significantly larger empirical result than the model result suggests that the region was significantly well developed commercially meaning that it had a particularly high proportion of the urban population of the whole prefecture. Such was the case of the four prefectures of Dongchuan, Qujing, Zhaotong, and Lin’an. The first three prefectures were either located in the Yunnan-Sichuan and Yunnan-Guizhou traffic arteries or particularly developed because of the mining industry. Lin’an fu (prefecture) was commercially Table 35

Population of towns and cities in Yunnan province by prefectures in 1776. Unit: /1,000 people

Fu (prefecture)

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference (%)

Correction

Yunnan Cheng jiang Chu xiong Wu ding Qu jing Guangxi Shun ning Yong chang Teng yue ting Pu’er Yuan jiang

60 15 28 12 60 13 10 13 3 13 6

48 16 19 5 14 0 12 14 10 20 1

19.8 9.8 30.5 58.6 76.2 97.0 16.7 7.5 223.7 50.6 79.9

60 15 28 12 60 13 10 13 3 13 6

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

423

prosperous because of the trade with Vietnam in modern times. We then assume that the average annual growth rate of the population of the prefectures and counties from 1776 to 1910 was 4‰, and that the urban population in 1776 was much less than in 1910. Similarly, a significantly larger empirical result than the model result suggests that in 1776 the region was not developed commercially and that the urban population accounted for a much smaller proportion of the population of the whole prefecture than in other areas, including Tengyue and Pu’er fu (prefectures). Given the huge impact of the war and the plague on the population of Yunnan, we adopt the empirical population as the corrected population (See Table 13-16). To sum up, in 1776, Yunnan province had an urban population of 546,000. 11

Summary

In terms of the individual prefectures, the density of the cities and towns throughout the country increased significantly in comparison with Map 15. In addition to the significant increase in the density of the cities and towns in Jiangnan, the increase in Huabei (the northern regions of China) was also very obvious, meaning two clusters of urban regions were formed in Jiangnan and Huabei.

Fu (prefecture)

Empirical population

Model estimates

Difference (%)

Correction

Zhenyuan Jingdongting Kaihua Guangnan Lin’an Zhaotong Dongchuan Dali Menghuating Lijiang Yongbeiting

2 1 9 12 69 67 32 47 5 21 0

0 0 6 7 40 18 3 34 3 15 0

0 0 38.7 40.9 41.4 73.0 90.1 28.3 39.9 27.0 0

2 1 9 12 69 67 32 47 5 21 0

Map 17

Distribution of cities and towns in the individual prefectures in 1776

Map 18

Level of urbanization of the individual prefectures in 1776

426

Chapter 14

Due to the existence of summer resorts and the development of trade with Russia, the level of urbanization in the northern part of the Great Wall increased rapidly. The existence of Beijing and Tianjin significantly increased the scope of the densely populated urban areas in the north. Meantime, the southeast coastal regions remained as regions with a relatively high level of urbanization. In contrast, the seemingly high urbanization ratio of Anxi fu (prefecture) of Gansu was falsely created by an overall low population. Therefore, the Anxi prefecture of Gansu is not included in our investigation. At this point, we can summarize the provincial urban population in 1776 (Qianlong 41st year). See Table 36. In 1776 (Qianlong 41st year), the total population of the 18 provinces was 311.645 million including 22.739 million urban dwellers who accounted for 7.3% of the total population. In terms of the individual provinces, Zhili and Jiangsu had the highest urbanization ratio surpassing 11%. Next were Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Guangdong, and Fujian, that made up about 9%. Then there were Shaanxi, Hubei, Yunnan, Sichuan, Henan, and Shanxi that comprised between 6%–8%. Finally, Hunan, Shandong, Anhui, Sichuan, Guizhou, and Gansu, made up less than 6%. Gansu had the lowest ratio of only 2.5%. At the prefectural level, the individual prefectures having an urbanization ratio close to or more than 20% were Shuntian, Tianjin, Jiangning, and Hangzhou. The urbanization levels of the four metropolitan cities of Beijing, Tianjin, Nanjing, and Hangzhou continued rising. The high urbanization level of Chengde fu (prefecture) and the six ting of Guisui (Hohhot) were indeed resulted from the urban population of the two regions but also from the fact Table 36

The urban population of the provinces across China in 1776

Province

Population Urban Ratio Province population (%)

Population Urban Ratio population (%)

Jiangsu Anhui Zhejiang Jiangxi Hunan Hubei Fujian Guangdong Guangxi

31,790 25,766 22,306 18,820 15,055 16,173 13,779 18,445 7,662

7,949 5,670 16,504 19,841 23,225 27,902 12,278 7,946 15,799

3,532 1,329 2,103 1,766 784 1,137 1,188 1,597 161

11.1 5.2 9.4 9.4 5.2 7.0 8.6 8.7 2.1

Yunnan Guizhou Sichuan Zhili Henan Shandong Shanxi Shaanxi Gansu

546 258 1,097 2,484 1,533 1,417 789 617 401

6.9 4.6 6.6 12.5 6.6 5.1 6.4 7.8 2.5

Urban Population in Southern China in the Mid-Qing Dynasty

427

that their total population was small. In addition, the high urbanization ratio of Jining and Linqing fu (prefectures) of Shandong province was due to the coalescence of individuals as a result of the canal economy. As for Raozhou prefecture and Nan’an fu (prefecture) of Jiangxi province, their high ratios were because of the commercially prosperous Jingdezhen town as well as Dayu and Nankang counties. A high level of urbanization sometimes does not indicate a high urban population, but a high proportion of the urban population against the prefectural population. Such was the case of Xing’an fu (prefecture) of Shaanxi province, which was located south of the Qinling Mountains. Areas having an urbanization ratio close to or more than 15% were Guangzhou, Dongchuan, Xuanhua, and the three ting of Koubei (Zhangjiakou, Dushikou, and Duolunnuo’er). The level of urbanization of Guangzhou fu (prefecture) was related to the size of the city of Guangzhou, Dongchuan fu (prefecture), which was located in the east of Yunnan, because of a prosperous mining industry, and Xuanhua and the Koubei regions because of the establishment of weisuo. As for Qujing and Zhaotong in Yunnan province, Xuanhua, Chengde, and the six ting of Guisui, they were located either on the borders between Zhili and Shanxi or between the Han and the Mongolian regions and they were also prosperous because of the trades. Some were characterized by an urban population consisting largely of former weisuo soldiers. Hezhou fu (prefecture) of Anhui has been excluded from this study because of its geographical location and its small population.

Chapter 15

Urban Population of Shandong Province at the End of the Qing Dynasty This chapter takes 1910 as the year of reference as it discusses the urban population of Shandong province in 1910. This chapter divides the cities into three types: 1)  emerging coastal cities including Yantai, Qingdao, and Zhoucun; 2) established cities including provincial capitals, fu (prefectures), and counties; 3) towns and other cities. Our research on Shandong shows that in regions where there was little or no modern transportation, the urban population corresponded with the entire population. 1

Resources and Methods

This chapter estimates the size of the urban population based on the relationships among the number of the businesses and the size of the urban population regarding the documented registration of businesses at the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949). Lin Xiuzhu’s (1919) Shandong Ge Xian Xiangtu Diaocha Lu (hereinafter referred to as Diaocha Lu) contains records of not only the population of the individual counties of Shandong but also those of the major cities and towns under those counties, as well as the number of businesses in the counties before 1919.1 Based on the systematic registration records of businesses and the population of the city, we assume the population of each county can be estimated. Diaocha Lu considers the county as the unit of documentation under which are 18 categories of records, including on the population, business, and transportation—vital in the calculation of the urban population. Since the book was published in 1919, its data should be from prior to 1919. However, for the sake of convenience, this chapter will consider it the data of 1919. With regards to the population, it was recorded in Diaocha Lu that “the population was based on the reports of the county governments.” The prefectural numbers we arrived at by adding up the county numbers as recorded 1 Lin, X. (1919). Shandong Ge Xian Xiangtu Diaocha Lu. Shandong Shengzhang Gongshu Jiaoyu Ke Yin Xing.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_016

Urban Population of Shandong Province

429

in Diaocha Lu were higher than the corresponding numbers from the 1910 census.2 This allowed us to confirm that the data in Diaocha Lu were from before 1919 (not just 1910). Furthermore, we used the data from the 1953 census to correct figures that appeared incorrect.3 With regard to the businesses in the records, shanghui generally referred to the chambers of commerce at the county or town levels. Shanghao, however, mainly referred to that were small and large scale public and private banks, pawnshops, groceries, oil mills, or engaged in other industries. The business was classified under various categories in certain counties and as whole categories in others. The so-called shanghao referred to businesses that had their own names and were of a certain scale, significantly different from the vendors. In the records, the shangye zhuangkuang (business condition) section contained information on market changes over the years. The scale of various businesses was also mentioned using terms including “quite wealthy” and “not very developed.” It was not mentioned in Diaocha Lu if the businesses referred to those of the county capital or of the whole cities and towns. Only in one case was the clarification made. Under the shanghao section of Yishui county, it was noted that “there were a total of more than 70 groceries, banks, and other businesses within the city, and more than 150, all small businesses, in the countryside.”4 Presumably, there were 155 businesses in the seven cities and towns of Yishui county, including 35 in Yuezhuang district that was the most prosperous. The remaining 6 towns each had 20 businesses which appears to have been the average number of businesses in a small town in that region. However, even by using the average number, we discovered that the sum of the businesses in certain cities and towns surpassed the total number of businesses in the entire county, suggesting that the records of Diaocha Lu with regard to those counties did not include the businesses outside of the county capital. In addition, Diaocha Lu also did not mention if its records of the businesses were complete. Occasionally, there is mention of the fact that

2 Wang, S. (1932–1933) “Minzheng Bu Hukou Diaocha Ji Ge Jia Guji” [Household Registers of Ministry of Civil Affairs and Estimates of Population]. Shehui Kexue Zazhi [Social Science Journal] (compliation of selected articles). 3 Zhongguo Renkou Tongji Nianjian: 1988. Beijing: Zhongguo caizheng jingji Publishing House, 1988; Zhongwen chubanwu fuwu zhongxin (Ed.). (2013). “Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo 1953 Nian Renkou Diaocha Tongji Ziliao (Population Census of P.R.C in 1953)”. Zhonggong Zhongyao Lishi Wenxian Ziliao Huibian, No. 30, (Vol. 138–139), Los Angeles. 4 Lin, X. (1919). Shandong Ge Xian Xiangtu Diaocha Lu (Vol. 2) (p. 130). Jinan: Shandong Shengzhang Gongshu Jiaoyu Ke Yin Xing.

430

Chapter 15

the records only involved major businesses; however, in most cases, there is no information on the completeness of the documents. With regard to transportation, there were two railways in Shandong: the Jiaoji Railway from Qingdao to Jinan, which opened in 1904, and the Shandong section of Tientsin-Pukow Railway (north section), which opened in 1911. Informed by the descriptions of significant forms of transportation, including railways, ports, river transport in Diaocha Lu, this chapter divides the counties in Shangdong into three categories: developed, convenient, and inconvenient. The data used in the chapter to correct the errors in Diaocha Lu is obtained from the following sources: 1) Zhonghua Minguo Nong Shang Tongji Biao (hereafter referred to as Nong Shang Biao), a collection of tables completed by the governors of each county in accordance with statistical survey rules on the state of the industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, and forestry sectors. The series of surveys was conducted ten times from the 3rd year to the 13th year of the Republic of China (1912–1949) and published by Zhonghua Shu Ju, a Shanghai-based publishing house. This section mainly uses supplementary data from the 2nd, 4th, and 5th survey (hereinafter referred to as Nong Shang Biao II, Nong Shang Biao IV, and Nong Shang Table V), and cross-checks them with the data from Diaocha Lu. 2) Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi by Bai Meichu (1876–1940) printed in 1925 by Shangwu Yinshuguan, which contains population records, from around 1919, of more than 30 county capitals, cities, and towns in Shandong. 3)  New local records that make it possible to verify the validity of the data from Diaocha Lu. Unfortunately, due to a lack of space, it is impossible to discuss all data discrepancies in this chapter. 2

Commercial Ports5

2.1 Commercial Ports 2.1.1 Yantai Yantai was under the jurisdiction of Fushan county, Dengzhou fu (prefecture). By the end of Daoguang (1850), it was already an important port on the North and South Sea trading route, and its commercial center, Tianhougong, had over a thousand shops.6 Yantai developed rapidly as a commercial port from when 5 For the history of Shandong’s commercial ports, see Zhang, Y. (1982). “Zhongguo Xiandaihua De Quyu Yanjiu: Shandong Sheng (1860–1916)” [Regional studies of China’s modernization: Shandong province (1860–1916)], Taipei: special issue of the Institute of modern history, Academia Sinica (43), 169–183. 6 Wang, Y. & Gao, F. Zhifu Qu Xingzheng Quyu De Lishi Bianqian (Historical Changes in the Administrative Region of Zhifu). In Yantai Shi Zhifu Qu Difang Shizhi Bianweihui Bangongshi (Ed.). Difang Zhi Ziliao Yanjiu (printed version), (4), 1–2.

Urban Population of Shandong Province

431

it was opened based in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Tianjin (1858). According to Diaocha Lu, “there were about 150,000 residents and about 3,000 businesses.” This means there was only one shop for fifty people, which was irrational, as our analysis below indicates. 2.1.2 Jinan In 1904, Jinan opened a commercial port on the west side of the old city at the intersection of Jiaoji Railway and the upcoming Tientsin-Pukow Railway. With the rapid growth of the population, the commercial port of Jinan expanded, connecting the old city and the new. In 1904 (Guangxu 30th year), when the commercial port was first opened, there were “no more than 130,000 or 140,000 inhabitants in the city and the port. In the commercial port area, there were over a thousand households.”7 Based on this record, it can be deduced that in 1910, the population of Jinan city was about 150,000. After 1910, the population of Jinan city increased rapidly. Diaocha Lu mentioned two reasons for “the abnormally rapid growth of businesses in Jinan.” First, in the early years of the Republic of China (1912–1949), as a result of severe bandit attacks, merchants from regions including Zhoucun and Weixian gathered in Jinan. Second, international trading in nearby Qingdao, which was occupied by the Japanese in 1914, sped up the commercial development of Jinan. From 1910 to 1919, the average annual urban population growth rate of Jinan was 20‰, and by 1919, Jinan city had a population of about 180,000. In the records of Diaocha Lu, there were 1,993 businesses in Licheng city and four towns. Luokou town, the largest of the towns, was located at the end of Jiaoji Railway and set up a local commercial association. If we assume that there were 100 businesses in Luokou town and 20 in the other three towns, it is then possible to determine that the urban and port regions of Jinan altogether had 1,833 businesses.8 In addition, Jinan had 148 handicraft workshops and 40 factories that had machines. Each handicraft workshop had about 20 employees. The machine factories were all built after 1910 and were larger given that they each had 40 employees.9 The scale of these 40 factories was equivalent to that of 80 businesses. Thus, we can conclude that in 1919, urban Jinan had a total of 1,913 businesses where about 94 individuals worked. 7 The Association of Industry and Commerce of Jinan (Ed.). (1982). Jiefang Qian Jinan Shi Ziben Zhuyi Gongshang Ye Gaikuang. Jinan shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). Jinan Shi Zhi Ziliao (Vol. 3), 1. 8 Nong Shang Biao II shows that the Sub-Branch of the Trades and Businesses Association of Jinan in 1911 only had 264 registered businesses, which is unreasonable and will not be the subject of our discussion at this junction. 9 Jinan shi zhi Compilation Committee. (1982). Jinan Shi Zhi Ziliao, (3), 1–15.

432

Chapter 15

The above calculation does not include the suburban population of Xiaoqinghe district. By the time of the liberation in 1948, Jinan had a population of 289,000 in its urban areas, 101,000 in its semi-urban areas, and 75,000 in its rural areas.10 The population of semi-urban areas or suburbs accounted for about 22% of the total population of Jinan city. Considering that 22% was the population of Xiaoqinghe district, then we can determine that the district had 43,000 inhabitants. The urban population of Jinan in 1919 was 180,000, which, together with the suburban population, would bring the total population to 220,000. 2.1.3 Qingdao In 1897, Germany leased Jiao’ao (Jiaozhou Bay) to build ports and railways, turning Qingdao into a German colony. In 1902, the urban population of Qingdao was only 15,000, but it rapidly grew to 34,000 by 1910 and 53,000 by 1913.11 After the Japanese occupation of Qingdao in 1914, the number of Japanese businesses in the region skyrocketed. In 1922, there were 1,153 Japanese businesses,12 while the whole city had 1,713 registered businesses. Back in 1919, it was estimated that the city had about 1,613 businesses. In 1923, Qingdao had a population of 182,400.13 Cognizant of the fact that the urban population was about 109,000, it can be estimated that each business had 68 people, different from that of Jinan. Given that the average annual growth rate was 20‰, in 1919, the urban population of Qingdao would have been 100,000, which, together with the suburban population, would bring the figure to 120,000. 2.2 Self-Established Commercial Ports 2.2.1 Weixian County In 1904, a commercial port was established by the Qing government at Weixian county. According to Diaocha Lu, the county had a total population of 154,000.

10

Jinan shi zhi Compilation Committee. 1984 (printed version). Jinan Shi Zhi Ziliao, (Vol. 5), 17–18. 11 Jiao’ao Zhi, Vol. 3; Qingdao shi zhi bangongshi (Ed.). (2001). Qingdao Shi Zhi: Renkou Zhi (p. 8). Beijing: Wuzhou chuanbo Publishing House. 12 Qingdao shi zhi bangongshi (Ed.). (2000). Qingdao Shi Zhi: Shangye Zhi (p. 1). Beijing: Wuzhou chuanbo Publishing House. 13 According to Qingdao Shi Zhi: Shangye Zhi, in 1923, the urban population accounted for 57.65% of Qingdao city’s population. Given that in 1910 the suburban population was 126,000, it can be deduced that in 1923, the population would have been 134,000, assuming that the average annual growth rate was 5‰. This is why we can estimate that the urban population was 182,400.

Urban Population of Shandong Province

433

In fact, by 1906, the county already had a population of 497,000,14 and it increased to 635,000 in 1963. Therefore, the number in Diaocha Lu was problematic. In 1919, Weixian county had 910 businesses spread in its seven towns, including Hantingzhen town “commonly known as prosperous” because of the railway station in the area. The other six counties, for their part, were considered “all regular.” If we assume that there were 100 businesses in Hantingzhen town and 20 each in the other six towns, we can deduce that there were 220 businesses in the cities and towns under Weixian and 690 in the county capital. If we assume that, following the Jinan model, there were 95 individuals working in each business, we can determine that in 1919, the county had an urban population of 66,000 and a total population of 86,000. According to Vol. 13 of Weixian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1924, the county had an urban population of 83,000. These figures are considered reasonable considering the differences between the division and definition of suburbs through different periods. 2.2.2 Zhoucun According to Diaocha Lu, Changshan county had a population of 233,000 and 525 businesses. In addition to the county capital, there was Zhoucun town. Because Zhoucun town was adjacent to the county capital, they were perceived to be one city. In 1904, Zhoucun became a commercial port, and under the “commercial port” section in Diaocha Lu, it was noted “Zhoucun, since the opening of its commercial port, was commercially prosperous. It was the only market in Shangdong for hundreds of goods.” In 1916 (the 5th year of the Republic of China), however, the long-maintained prosperity was destroyed by the Revolutionary Army that occupied the city. It was noted under the “business condition” section that “stores were severely damaged by the fire set by soldiers and most of the stores relocated to the provincial capital.” In addition to commerce, Zhoucun also had industries, notably silk weaving and casting industries. In 1919, the silk weaving industry was still a rural sideline, and Zhoucun town had no machine workshop.15 According to Diaocha Lu and based on local accounts, approximately 30 or 40 households were engaged in the copper industry. Our estimation suggests that in 1919, there were seven

14 Compilation Committee of Records of WeiChengqu, Weifangshi, Shandong Province (Ed.). (1993). Wei Chengqu Zhi (p. 133). Jinan: Qilu shushe. 15 Zhang, X. Yichang Hou Ji Fang Yi Jiu. Zhoucun Shangbu (pp. 125–135).

434

Chapter 15

households implicated in the iron industry, while a total of 40 households were involved in the copper industry.16 Research shows that in 1900, Zhoucun had more than 40 pulp workshops and more than 70 dyeing workshops.17 These workshops, including the other 40 in the copper and iron industry, made up 685 businesses and workshops. Assuming that each business and workshop accounted for 95 people, the urban population would be around 65,000, roughly matching the 76,000 from the 1953 census. According to Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi, there were 30,000 residents in Zhoucun and 40,000 in Changshan county capital. These figures, it should be noted, are consistent with our estimates above. 2.2.3 Longkou In 1914, the Qing government established a commercial port in Longkou town. According to Diaocha Lu, in 1919, Longkou had only 200 households and 400 businesses. The residential population was about 10,000, and the number of individuals engaged in businesses was about 38,000. In 1910, it was noted that there were over 5,000 houses constructed by Chinese and foreign businessmen in Longkou.18 It seems, therefore, that the number of businesses did not necessarily correspond to the population because Longkou was a transit place for goods. It was recorded in Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi that Longkou town had a population of 8,000, which would make about 200 households, a number consistent with the records of Diaocha Lu. 2.3 Industrial Cities and Towns 2.3.1 Zaozhuang Zaozhuang town in Yixian county had rich coal mine reserves that were also easily accessible. The local mining industry had its head office in Zaozhuang and a branch office in Taizhuang, with a railway branch line connecting the two towns. According to Diaocha Lu, Yixian county had 284 businesses and three towns—Zaozhuang, Taizhuang, and Hanzhuang. Hanzhuang, which was located at the junction of the North and South sections of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway, developed into a town because of the railway. These three towns “had a large population and prosperous business,” which set them apart from other cities and towns. If we assume that each business corresponded to 95 people, 16 Bao, Z. Zhoucun Shangbu De Xingcheng Yu Fazhan. Zhoucun Shangbu (p. 3); Gao, L. Wo Liaojie De Zhoucun Sizhi Ye Fazhan Gaikuang. Zhoucun Shangbu (p. 120). 17 Yu, H. Huiyi Zhoucun De Sichou Yinran Ye. Zhoucun Shangbu (p. 162). 18 Zhongguo Shishi Hui Lu: Shandong Longkou Zhi Xianxiang. Dongfang Zazhi, (Vol. 7), (Issue 10). (electronic version), page number unknown.

Urban Population of Shandong Province

435

then the population was around 27,000 inhabitants. If we were to add the population of coal kiln workers and their families, as well as the managers and their families, that would bring the urban population of Zaozhuang to about 37,000.19 2.3.2 Boshan Yanshen town of Boshan county was not a commercial port, but it was known for its developed industry and commerce. According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had a total of 131,000 inhabitants and 160 businesses, including 45 factories of wool, iron, glass, and chemicals. In terms of the scale, these factories equaled 90 businesses, thereby increasing the totality of businesses in the town to 200. Considering that there were four towns in the territory, even if we were to assume that each business corresponded to 20 households, there would be only 120 businesses in the county. These would translate to a population of only 11,000. In Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi, it was mentioned not only that the urban regions in the county were densely populated and commercially prosperous, but also that on the west of the Xiaofu River, “the residents were mostly engaged in the glass business.” In addition, the county boasted industries in lead, copper, iron, and coal, and various minerals. The whole county relied on these industries, and in total, no less than 20,000 or 30,000 individuals worked in these industries. It was also mentioned that the population of the county capital was 40,000. We considered all these numbers reasonable, so we took them into account in our calculations. It is worth mentioning that in industrial areas, the population and the number of businesses were usually not. 3

Regions with Developed Transportation

3.1 Categorization Criteria In the pre-aviation era, the city where two railway lines converged or a railway and a port co-existed would be considered developed in terms of transportation accessibility. Qingdao, after 1904, and Jinan, after 1912, could be counted among such developed cities. Another example is Yixian, where the two railway branch lines connecting Zaozhuang and Taizhuang converged. In addition, the county was also accessible by canals transforming the county into an accessible coal mine industrial zone. These regions with developed transportation have been labeled Level 3. 19

Compilation Committee of Records of Zaozhuang Mining Bruear (Ed.). (1984). Collection of Mining Records of Zaozhuang.

436

Chapter 15

The cities on the Jiaodong Peninsula, though with no railway, could also be considered developed because of their proximity to the port. However, compared with Jinan and Qingdao, they were still slightly less accessible, so they have been labeled Level 2.5. For instance, there was Fushan County, “with only two ports, Yantai and Bajiao,” one of which was open to foreign trade. Others included Penglai, Huangxian, Muping, Wendeng, Rongcheng, Haiyang, Jimo, Yexian, which all had seaports, big or small, and a large number of businesses engaged in a variety of trade as well as multiple postal service stations. These regions could be labeled Level 2.5 as well. Dexian and Jining counties were also 2.5 (See below). Finally, there was Zhangqiu, west of Jinan, East of Zhoucun, located between the two major commercial ports, that can also be classified as 2.5. Yucheng and Pingyuan counties, which were situated between Jinan and Dezhou, also belonged to this level. Linqing could not be considered developed; however, when the major form of transport was by river rather than by sea, it was one of the two national-level central cities in Shandong province. By the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), its population was declining. Despite the decline, we have included its population in this section of the chapter dedicated to regions with developed transportation. On Jiaodong Peninsula, Laiyang county, which only had a short coastline, gained transportation accessibility and commercial prosperity because of its proximity to Jinkou port. Therefore, we categorize Laiyang as a Level 2 city. 3.2 Urban Population 3.2.1 Fushan According to Diaocha Lu, Yantai had over 3,000 businesses while Fushan had 1,650. In addition to Yantai, Bajiao port was also in Fushan county. According to Vol. 5 of Fushan Xian Zhi Gao edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), there were “more than 100 businesses” in the port of Bajiao. If we exclude the business in Bajiao and assume that the remaining 1,550 businesses were from the county capital of Fushan, which means that each business corresponded to 50 people, the population of the city would still be as high as 78,000—a completely unreasonable figure. According to Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi, Fushan county capital had a population of only 20,000. If we assume each business corresponded to 50 people, the number of businesses would be 400, and if we assume an average of 95 individuals per business, the number would be only 210. Therefore, we estimate that the totality of businesses in Fushan county capital, Bajiao and Yantai was 1,650. Assuming that the population of Bajiao port was 10,000 and that the urban population of Fushan was 180,000, that would mean each business had an average of 109 individuals—much higher than in the averages in Jinan and Qingdao.

Urban Population of Shandong Province

437

This suggests the earlier a port was established, the larger the average size of a business and the larger its corresponding population. Therefore, for those average county headquarters with no commercial ports, industries, or other prosperous commercial activities, each business corresponded to 90 people. 3.2.2 Jiaoxian County According to Diaocha Lu, Jiaoxian county, including Qingdao, had a population of 515,000; however, the record of the 114 businesses in Jiaoxian did not include those in Qingdao. If we assume that there were 90 people per business, the county’s population would be only 11,000. In addition to the county capital, Diaocha Lu also mentions two other towns, Wangtai and Zhangcang. In fact, there was also Lingshanwei town, which, like Wangtai town, also had a police branch. According to Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi, before the opening of the port in Qingdao, the port in Tabutou town was the largest. Even after the opening of Qingdao port, Tabutou remained a major port for civilian ship transportation, having a population of 3,500. We estimate that there were 40 businesses in Tabutou town, 20 in the other three towns. That means there was a total of 100 businesses in the four towns. In short, the county had a total of 224 businesses and an urban population of 20,000. 3.2.3 Huangxian County According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had a population of 371,000 residents, 324 businesses, including five other towns in addition to Longkou. We estimate that each town had 20 businesses. That would translate to a total of 100 businesses in five towns, and that the county capital had 224 businesses corresponding to the population of 20,000. 3.2.4 Jimo According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had 446,000 residents and 954 businesses. If there were 90 people per business, the urban population of the county would be 86,000. It was noted in Diaocha Lu that the county had six cities and towns, among which “Zhoutuan and Shangya counties were quite wealthy, more so than the remaining four towns, Nancun, Liuting, Jinjiakou, and Aoshanwei.” However, according to Jimo Xian Zhi and some other documents, since the middle of the Qing Dynasty, Jinjiakou and Jimo were the most commercially prosperous towns. Unfortunately, by the end of the Qing Dynasty, the commercial prosperity of Jinkou gradually declined, and the working population fell from 20,000 to 8,000. With reference to the case of Jining below, even if the working population was only 8,000, the total population might as well have been as high as 27,000. Jimo Shi Jinkou Zhen Zhi considers both Zhoutuan she (village) and Guqing she (village) as part of Jinkou town and states that in

438

Chapter 15

1872 (Tongzhi 11th year), the total population of the two localities was 7,000 and, in 1936, it was 9,000. We speculate that most of the 20,000 people engaged in various businesses in the heyday of Jinkou were migrants. Assuming that in 1919, the population of the four towns, including Nancun was 8,000 each, meaning the total was 32,000, the population of the two towns, including Zhoutuan, would be 10,000 while the total would be 20,000. Therefore, the six cities and towns altogether had a population of 52,000, and the whole county had a population of 34,000. In 1908, there were 364 local shops and vendors in urban Jimo.20 If we assume that each of them corresponded to 90 people, the population would be 33,000. 3.2.5 Wenden According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had 378,000 residents and 302 businesses corresponding to an urban population of 27,000. Other records indicate that by 1932, there were 277 relatively large businesses within the county,21 which matches the number in Diaocha Lu. In 1898, Weihaiwei became a British lease and developed from a military port to a town. The region was divided into the leased Weihai pier, and the Chinese governed the inner city of Weihaiwei. In 1909, Weihai Pier Commercial Association was established with more than 80 registered businesses.22 According to Nong Shang Biao II, there were 76 businesses registered under the Sub-Branch of the Businesses Association of Weihai and 20 under the Sub-Branch of the Businesses Association of Wendeng. It appears that, unlike Diaocha Lu, the aforementioned records used different statistical criteria. In 1930, Weihaiwei had an urban population of nearly 50,000. After the Japanese occupation of 1938, the city went into a depression and was destroyed during the 1948 earthquake. In 1919, the urban population fell to only 19,000.23 This number, plus that of Weihai inner city, matches the record of Diaocha Lu. That explains our decision to rely on the numbers in Diaocha Lu.

20 Shandong sheng Jimo xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1991). Jimo Xian Zhi (p. 391). Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Jimo shi Jinkou zhen zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (2005). Jimo Shi Jinkou Zhen Zhi (p. 84). Beijing: Zhongguo heping Publishing House. 21 Shandong sheng Wendeng shi difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1996). Wendeng Shi Zhi (p. 347). Beijing: Zhongguo chengshi Publishing House. 22 Liu, B. (2014). Jindai Zhimin Zujiedi Shangye Zuzhi De Dianxing Ge’an: Yi Weihaiwei De Shangbu Shanghui (1916–1930); Wei Li. Jianghan Xueshu, (3), 111. 23 Zhonggong Weihai shiwei yanjiushi (Ed.). (1990). Weihai Shi Qing: 1949–1989 (p. 397). Jinan: Shandong renmin Publishing House.

Urban Population of Shandong Province

439

3.2.6 Rongcheng According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had 185,000 residents and 282 businesses, corresponding to an urban population of 25,000. Apart from the county capital, there were Shidao and Lidao towns that had a comparatively larger population. According to Nong Shang Table II, Shidao had 192 businesses, the equivalence of 17,000 people. However, the records of Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi indicate that there were fewer than 1,000 residents in Shidao. In other words, for business and commercial centers like Shidao that handled goods transshipment, the number of businesses was unconnected to the residential population. Assuming that the county capital had the same 45 businesses each as Lidao, the urban population of the county would be 4,000. However, the recorded number in Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi was only 3,000 and, therefore, inappropriate. In 1919, the county had an urban population of 9,000. 3.2.7 Haiyang According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had 288,000 residents and 335 businesses, corresponding to an urban population of about 30,000. Within the county, there were four towns, including Dongcunzhen, Dasongweichengli, Haiyangsuo, and Dashansuo, that became county headquarters after the War of Resistance against Japanese Invaders (1931–1945). These towns, which were previously military garrisons, had a large population. We assume that there were 40 businesses per town, i.e., a total of 160 in four towns and 175 businesses, corresponding to a population of 16,000, in the county capital. Fengcheng town, the county capital, was a prosperous port that unfortunately degraded after it was bombed by the Japanese. After 1949, a new county headquarters was established in Dongcun town. Meanwhile, in 1949, Haiyang county had a population of 18,000 in the “urban region,”24 which probably referred to the whole county’s urban population. It is clear that those who lived in weisuo were no longer considered part of the urban population. 3.2.8 Penglai According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had 277,000 residents and 249 businesses that were the equivalent of an urban population of about 22,000. As mentioned in Penglai Xian Zhi, at the end of the Qing Dynasty, there were more than 130 private businesses, including inns and warehouses in the county. According to Nong Shang Table II, there were 312 businesses. The number from Diaocha Lu is between these two numbers, meaning it is relatively reliable. 24 Shandong sheng Haiyang xian difang zhi Compilation Committee. Haiyang Xian Zhi, internal publication (p. 103, p. 400).

440

Chapter 15

With reference to the number from Diaocha Lu, we estimate that there were 40 businesses in each of the three towns and only 129 in the county capital, which corresponded to a population of 12,000. 3.2.9 Muping County According to Diaocha Lu, Muping county had a population of 414,000 with only 113 businesses. It furthermore maintained that: “The sea route, starting at Shankou and ending in Yantai, reaches all directions. It can be said it is very convenient in terms of transportation … It connects with Yantai port on the northwest and is commercially not rustle … It can be described as having a large population, convenient in terms of transportation and commercially developed.” If we assume that there was an average of 20 businesses in each of the six towns across the county, the sum would surpass the officially recorded sum. This leads us to re-evaluate the recorded 113 businesses in the county capital, which had a population of 10,000. If we assume an average of 30 businesses per town, the sum would be 293, making the urban population of the county 26,000. 3.2.10 Yexian County Yexian county was located in the south of Laizhou Bay, on the side of Bohai Sea across Liaodong Peninsula. According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had 444,000 residents, 618 businesses, and five towns, and it was commercially prosperous. It was mentioned in Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi that among the five towns, Shahezhen town was “commercially much more prosperous than Yexian county,” that “Hutouyazhen town was a famous small port” and that Zhuqiaozhen town was “commercially prosperous, second to Shahezhen.” It seems that one-sixth of the businesses across the whole county was located in the county capital, which boasted 103 businesses and about 9,000 inhabitants. However, according to Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi, Yexian county only had 3,000 inhabitants—an incredibly low number. 3.2.11 Dexian County Although Dezhou could not be counted as a commercial port city, it was still an important city because it had Tientsin-Pukow Railway and canals. According to Diaocha Lu, “boats came and went in the canals, and both land and river transportation was convenient.” According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had a population of 287,000 residents and 870 businesses. The commercial conditions in Dexian county “could be considered developed.” There were three towns in Dexian, including Sangyuanzhen town with a long history that is also mentioned in Daqing Yitong

Urban Population of Shandong Province

441

Zhi. The town later became the county headquarters of Wuqiao county in Hebei province. We estimate that there were 100 businesses in Sangyuanzhen town, including 30 businesses or workshops in each of the two towns and that the remaining 710 businesses were distributed across the county headquarters of Dexian county, which had an estimated population of 64,000. There were also records indicating that in the early period of the Republic of China (1912–1949), Chengguan town in Dezhou city had 433 shops.25 This number has enabled us to estimate that the population of the county capital was 39,000. Excluding the population of Sangyuan town, which was counted as part of Wuqiao county, we estimate that, in 1919, the population of Dexian town was 69,000. 3.2.12 Pingyuan and Yucheng Pingyuan and Yucheng counties were located between Dexian and Jinan, and, with Tientsin-Pukow Railway passing through them, they could be considered developed with regard to their transportation network. According to Diaocha Lu, Pingyuan county had a population of 142,000 and 250 businesses. If we assume that there were 20 businesses in each of the six towns, that would mean the remaining 130 businesses were in the county capital. That would also mean the population was 12,000. According to Diaocha Lu, Yucheng county had a population of 212,000, three towns, and 435 businesses, including 90 of which were at city and town levels. The remaining businesses, amounting to 345 and corresponding to a population of 31,000, were in the county capital. 3.2.13 Zhangqiu According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had a population of 457,000 residents, 450 businesses, and nine towns. Assuming that there were 20 businesses in each town, the county capital would have had 270 businesses, and therefore, a population of 24,000. In 1907 in Zhangqiu county, “the iron handicraft industry was very developed, with no less than tens of thousands of workers going out and making a living out of it.”26 However, these workers were not counted as part of the urban population. In 1953, the urban population of the whole county was only 13,40027 as a result of the declining industry and commerce in the region. 25 Dezhou shi caizheng maoyi weiyuanhui (Ed.). (1993). Dezhou Shi Caizheng Mao Zhi (p. 69). Jinan: Qilu shushe. 26 Zhangqiu xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1992). Zhangqiu Xian Zhi (p. 128). Jinan: Jinan Publishing House. 27 Zhangqiu xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed). (1992). Zhangqiu Xian Zhi (p. 130). Jinan: Jinan Publishing House.

442

Chapter 15

3.2.14 Jining According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had a population of 260,000 and two towns and was commercially prosperous; however, the documented number of businesses was only 108, incredibly small. In the “business condition” of Diaocha Lu, it was stated that Jining was located on the coast of the grand canal and had a branch of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway. It was “on a commercial route, very developed.” The book also mentioned that Jining had several companies and modern factories, including an electric light company, a telephone company, a flour mill, two egg powder factories, and two weaving factories. For instance, Jinan roughly had the equivalent of 14 traditional businesses, and according to local residents, there were 37 bamboo workshops in 1910. By the time of the Republic of China (1912–1949), the number of workshops increased to more than 60.28 Even if we add to the shops of pastry and meat sa (a kind of porridge with local features), which were documented under the “special industries” section, there would be at most only 170 businesses in the whole county. We believe that this is because Diaocha Lu failed to account for those businesses engaged in the coal industry. According to Zaozhuang Meikuang Shi, “at that time, Jining was a distribution center, with no less than 60 or 70 businesses dealing with coal and normally employing as many as several hundreds of clerks and handymen”. Before the opening of Tientsin-Pukow Railway and its branch line in 1912, the coal of Taizhuang was transported through the canal to Jining for transit and distribution.” The opening of the railway not only changed the way in which coal was transported from Meizhuang, but it also changed the status of Jining to the coal distribution center. Since Jining had a railway branch line connecting with Tientsin-Pukow Railway, the county, with its up to 235 businesses and workshops, kept its commercial prosperity. Diaocha Lu only documented businesses from 15 lines of industries, including pawn shops, banks, pickle shops, tea shops. It somehow did not include agricultural and food industries. As indicated in Jining Shi Shangye Ju, “grains and millets from all directions were transported here to be distributed. There were as many as 36 large grain traders employing no less than a thousand people.”29 While this is a description of the situation in the Republic of China (1912–1949), it should be noted that the grain industry had been one of the major commercial businesses in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) and the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912). In 1910, the total number of businesses in Jining was 28 Shandong Jining shi zhengxie wenshi weiyuanhui (Ed.). (2000). Jining Yunhe Wenhua (p. 150). Beijing: Zhongguo wen shi Publishing House. 29 Jining shi shangye ju (Ed.). (1992). Jining Shi Shangye Zhi (internal publication), 29–37.

Urban Population of Shandong Province

443

about 270. If we assume that a total of 90 individuals were engaged in one business, then Jining would have had an urban population of 24,000. According to Vol. 2 of Jining Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), there were 24,000 residents in the four districts in urban Jinan in 1926. However, in 1953, the population of Jining city was as high as 86,000, suggesting that the actual urban population in 1910 and 1926 could be much higher than indicated in the official records. The local records can provide clues to the size of Jining’s population. It was recorded in Vol. 2 of Jining Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) that “there were two or three thousand (Hui) religious families that mostly lived in Nanguan district.” If we assume an average of five people per household, the estimated Hui population would be 13,000. Despite a lack of knowledge of the proportion of Hui people in Jining city, we do understand that Hui people in Nanguan could not have accounted for half of the city’s residents. There is another record worth discussing. At the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), there were nearly 10,000 people employed in the catering industry in urban Jining county. This number was “almost the same as the number of businessmen.”30 That is, the population engaged in commercial businesses in urban Jining was close to 20,000. According to Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi, Jining county capital had a population of 67,000, meaning each worker in the commercial businesses corresponded to 3.35 people. 3.2.15 Linqing The whole Linqing county had a population of 234,000, 210 businesses, and four towns. These businesses spanned 11 industries, including tea, medicine, woods, tobacco materials, shoemaking, groceries, accommodation, grains, banking, oil, and paper tobacco. In addition, there were five weaving factories (but were of a smaller scale) trading uniquely with businesses within the region. If we assume there were 90 people involved in each business and the numbers recorded would only correspond to 19,000 people. According to Vol. 6 of Linqing Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), Linqing had an urban population of 36,000 inhabitants in 1931. In 1949, the whole county had a non-agricultural population of 34,000.31 Therefore, we estimate that in 1919, Linqing had an urban population of 36,000.

30 31

Jining shi shangye ju (Ed.). (1992). Jining Shi Shangye Ju (internal publication) (p. 175). Shandong Linqing shi difang shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1997). Linqing Shi Zhi (p. 103). Jinan: Qilu shushe.

444

Chapter 15

In short, in 1919, regions with developed transportation included several large-scale county headquarters with a population of 50,000 to 70,000; several relatively large county headquarters with a population of 30,000; and small county headquarters with a population of about 10,000. Even in regions with developed traffic, the differences among county headquarters alone could still be wide. We find no correlation between the population numbers of the individual counties and those of the county headquarters or urban regions of the counties. In other words, the population numbers of all the counties do not reflect those of individual counties or the urban regions. 4

Regions with Convenient or Difficult Transportation

Categorization Criteria 4.1 This chapter considers that cities crossed by a railway (including branch lines) were convenient in terms of transportation. These regions included Jihe, Ziyang, Qufu, Zouxian, Tengxian, which had Tientsin-Pukow Railway, and Zichuan and Gaomi, which had the Jiaoji Railway. The situation in Lingxian county was quite peculiar. The county headquarters was more than 40 li away from Tientsin-Pukow Railway station. Within the 40 li between Lingxian county and the railway line were Shentouzhen town and Fenghuangdianzhen town, which were described as “commercially quite developed.” The situation in Tai’an county was similar to that in Lingxian county. While the county headquarters was far away from Tientsin-Pukow Railway, Dawenkouzhen town, which was located on the west side of the county, was “convenient with regard to transportation and it was commercially prosperous.” Therefore, although the railway did not pass through the two county headquarters, they are still considered Level 2 in terms of the convenience of their transportation system. Although Liaocheng was adjacent to the canal, the county was different from Dexian and Jining. It was mentioned in the “business” section of Diaocha Lu that “since the boats were no longer allowed in the canal, the businesses increasingly declined,” and in the “transportation” section that “the transportation was quite inconvenient.” Therefore, we list Liaocheng among the regions with “difficult transportation.” The so-called “difficult transportation” refers to regions with no modern traffic and where traditional water transportation was almost non-existent. Most areas of the regions on the inner mainland of China belonged to this category. However, after the suspension of the Grand Canal, Linqing benefited from a busier Weihe River. It was documented that “within the territory, there was a Weihe River connecting Henan on its west end and Tianjin on its north end.”

Urban Population of Shandong Province

445

Commercially speaking, it was “quite developed.” Guantao county, which was located in the west of Liaocheng, was described as “quite convenient because of the river route of Weihe” even though it was far from the canal. Other regions that benefited from Weihe included Wucheng and Xiajin, which are not analyzed in detail here. Therefore, we list these four county headquarters under Level 1.5. More interestingly, Puxian county very much benefited from the Yellow River route. It was documented that “the Yellow River from Puyang county flowed through this territory … which, overall, was remote and inconvenient in terms of transportation, having only the Yellow River route through which passed many grain ships and merchant ships.” Other regions also benefited from the Yellow River route, including Shouzhang and Fanxian counties. As a result, the three counties were also classified under Level 1.5. In addition, Qixia, Pingdu, and Zhaoyuan on the Jiaodong Peninsula were either distant from the sea or adjacent to the sea, and though they had no port, benefited from well-known commercial ports nearby, including Yantai, Qingdao, and Longkou. Therefore, we classify them under Level 1.5. The Urban Population 4.2 With regard to regions categorized as either convenient or difficult in terms of transportation, the data in Diaocha Lu were found either erroneous or incomplete and sometimes inconsistent in terms of documentation standards. The following is our detailed analysis. First, the number of businesses in the whole county was frequently incomplete. For example, according to Diaocha Lu, Pingdu county had five towns, 617,000 inhabitants, and 79 businesses and among which 40 were oil mills. According to Pingdu Xian Zhi, all these oil mills were located in the countryside,32 suggesting that Pingdu county almost had no commercial businesses. Pingdu Xian Zhi also indicated that before 1928, the county was reasonably commercialized, even though it degraded after the turbulences of 1929. In 1932, the county had more than 140 businesses of varied sizes and 95 shops in 5 towns—i.e., nearly 20 businesses per town. However, these towns were not mentioned in Diaocha Lu. It was also mentioned in Pingdu Xian Zhi that in 1936, there were 148 industrial and commercial businesses in urban and suburban Pingdu, a number that matches the number of businesses in the entire county, judging from the lines of industries mentioned. The generally stable business and commercial structure of the 1930s indicate that, overall, the commerce in Pingdu county was underdeveloped. This has led us to estimate that 32 Wei, J. (1987). Pingdu Xian Zhi (internal publication) (p. 335).

446

Chapter 15

at least 240 businesses in Pingdu county in 1919, corresponding to an urban population of 22,000. According to Diaocha Lu, Wudi county only had six businesses, but as many as four towns. In the same document, the recorded numbers of businesses for Putai, Juxian, Guangrao, Zhucheng, Pingyin, Qiuxian, Tangyi, Shenxian were 5, 7, 9, 9, 10, 15, 19, and 20 respectively—an incredibly small number. Another example is Rizhao which, according to Diaocha Luo, only had 15 of the most well-known firms even though no information is provided about the rest of the firms. Similarly, the book unrealistically noted that Fanxian and Puxian counties, which had six and seven cities and towns respectively, only had six and seven businesses. Nong Shang Lu IV, however, indicated that Qiuxian had as many as 85 businesses. Because this data appears reasonable, we consider it in our calculation. Accordingly, we adjust the data according to the following principles: We assume ten businesses per town for counties with five or more towns and counties; 20 businesses per town for counties with three to five towns; and 30 businesses per town for counties with one or two towns. The number also fluctuates based on the scale of the individual county: The larger the county, the bigger the number, and vice versa. Second, the incompleteness of the record of businesses in cities and towns was common. The following is our detailed analysis. 4.2.1 Changyi County According to Diaocha Lu, the entire Changyi county had 457,000 residents, 450 businesses, and nine towns. Diaocha Lu noted that “Unlike Liutuan town that is considerably developed, all towns are mediocre.” According to Changyi Xian Zhi, in 1824 (Daoguang 24th year), “within the territory of Liutuan, silk trading was flourishing, and many businessmen from other regions come to trade. There were more than 100 businesses.” It was recorded in Nong Shang Biao II that there were 93 businesses, the same number as in Diaocha Lu—an indication that the data was from 1824. During the Guangxu period (1875–1908), the silk industry in Zhoucun, Weixian, and nearby regions, including the adjacent town of Liutuan, was very prosperous. Therefore, the record of Changyi Xian Zhi, indicating that the town had over 400 shops by the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949) was reasonable. Not all of the 400 shops could be considered businesses. If we assume that 200 of them were, then the population of Liutuan town would have been around 18,000. It was also documented in Changyi Xian Zhi that Huishan, which benefited from the opening of the Jiaoji Railway, had 43 businesses and companies in the early years of the Republic of China (1912–1949).

Urban Population of Shandong Province

447

In addition, by the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), the urban regions of the counties, influenced by Zuoshan and Liutuan, witnessed the rise of commerce with a total of 91 businesses and shops in 1936. According to Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi, Changyi county had an urban population of 10,000, which was slightly larger than the actual number. It was recorded in Changyi Xian Zhi that before 1949, the industry and commerce of the county were under-developed as there was a very small non-agricultural population. By 1956, the county’s non-agricultural population was only 12,000 due to the devastation caused by the war.33 In short, we estimate that in 1919, there were 4,000 residents each in the county capital and Zuoshan town and 2,000 each in the other two towns, thereby bringing the total urban population of the county to 30,000. Jiyang County 4.2.2 According to Diaocha Lu, Jiyang county had five towns, a population of 253,000, but only 139 relatively large businesses, including 29 banks, 80 inns, and 30 oil workshops. The rest were described as “other businesses too small to be recorded.” It was noted in Vol. 3 of Jiyang Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) that in 1920, the entire county population was 250,000 inhabitants, including 17,000 who lived in the county capital. If we assume that each business had 90 people, the number of businesses would be 186. If we assume there were 20 businesses per town, then the number of businesses in the whole county would be 286. 4.2.3 Xiajin County According to Diaocha Lu, Xiajin county had four towns, a population of 188,000 inhabitants, and 55 businesses. If we assume there were 20 businesses per town, then the number of businesses in the entire county would be 135. The population of the county capital was 5,000, while the urban population of the whole county was 12,000. In 1949, Xiajin county capital had a population of 6,000 and a non-agricultural population of 4,000.34 The urban population outside of the county capital was all counted as the non-agricultural population, which is consistent with the data of 1919.

33

Shandong sheng Changyi xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1987). Changyi Xian Zhi (internal publication) (pp. 7, 100, 324–325). 34 Shandong sheng Xiajin xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1991). Xiajin Xian Zhi (pp. 108–109). Jinan: Shandong renmin Publishing House.

448

Chapter 15

4.2.4 Boxing County According to Diaocha Lu, Boxing county had five towns, a population of 218,000 inhabitants, and 29 businesses. Applying the same method as outlined above, we estimate the number of businesses in the whole county to be 109. This estimate is supported by existing documents. A table documenting the distribution of private-owned businesses in the major sectors in Boxing county in 1913 shows that the county capital had 55 businesses altogether. The county had five towns, three of which were relatively large and contained respectively 31, 14, and eight businesses. The numbers, which are consistent with those recorded in Diaocha Lu, bring the totality of the businesses in the county to 108.35 It was recorded in Nong Shang Biao V that Boxing county had 119 businesses. Linqu County 4.2.5 According to Diaocha Lu, Linqu county had two towns, a population of 347,000, and 50 businesses. If we assume that the businesses were all in the county capital, then the corresponding population would only be 5,000. It was recorded in Nong Shang Biao II that the county had 83 businesses which corresponded to 7,000 residents. According to Nong Shang Biao V, the county had 200 businesses in the county capital and other urban areas—data which appears credible. 4.2.6 Laiwu County According to Diaocha Lu, Linwu county had one town, a population of 362,000, and 225 businesses. In fact, Nong Shang Table IV shows a record of 240 businesses. Assuming that all the businesses were in the county capital, we determine that the corresponding population was 22,000. According to Vol. 1 of Xu Xiu Laiwu Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1930, the Laiwu county capital had a population of 25,000. These two numbers match and, therefore, are credible. However, in the areas that were damaged by the Japanese occupation and civil war, the sizes of the cities and towns in 1949 were smaller than those in 1919. Therefore, extreme care is required as we check the 1919 data against the 1949 data. 4.2.7 Xintai County According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had 147,000 residents, 55 businesses, and one town. If we assume that there were 20 businesses in the town, the 35 Shandong sheng Boxing xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Boxing Xian Zhi (p. 260). Jinan: Qilu shushe.

Urban Population of Shandong Province

449

whole county would then have 75 businesses. In fact, it was recorded in Nong Shang Biao IV that there were 72 businesses in the county, indicating that the above estimate was reasonable. Using the same method, we have also adjusted the data of the following counties: Dongping, Wenshang, Tancheng, Jinxiang, Deping, Gaotang, Zhaoyuan, Gaoyuan, Guancheng, Chiping, and Dingtao. 4.2.8 Binxian County According to Diaocha Lu, Binxian county had two towns, a population of 225,000, and 46 businesses. If we assumed that all the 46 businesses were in the county capital and corresponded to 4,000 residents, then the population of the whole county would have been 8,000. Early in the Qing Dynasty, Binzhou fu (prefecture) had the three counties of Putai, Lijin, and Zhanhua under its jurisdiction. Later, it was downgraded to a sub-fu (prefecture) (sanzhou), and in 1913, Binzhou became Binxian. In 1958, Beizhen town became the headquarters of the now Binxian county, which became part of Huimin county. In 1961, Binxian was re-established as an independent county with its new headquarters at Bincheng. The county headquarters later changed to Beizhen in 1969 and the new Bincheng in 1972. According to Binzhou Shi Zhi, 11,000 inhabitants of the total population were registered as the urban population while 6,000 were registered under the non-agricultural population.36 We speculate that the 6,000 non-agricultural population referred to the population of the county capital, with the remaining population belonging to Beizhen town. We consider Beizhen, which was not under the county’s jurisdiction, as a city-level town, and therefore, do not count its population as non-agricultural. After our adjustment, we find that the 1910 data is consistent with the 1949 data. Zhanhua County 4.2.9 According to Diaocha Lu, Zhanhua county had four towns, a population of 155,000, and only 31 businesses corresponding to a population of 3,000 inhabitants. According to Zhanhua Xian Zhi, Gucheng town was, for some time, the county headquarters. This was also the case in 1956 with Fuguozhen town, located in the south of Fuguocun village with a sub-town called Xiawa town. The frequent change of the county headquarters suggested that the population was extremely small. Therefore, we estimate that the population of the three relatively larger towns was 1,000 each, and that in 1919, the county had an urban population of 6,000.

36 Shandong Sheng Binzhou Shi Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Binzhou Shi Zhi (pp. 36, 87). Jinan: Qilu shushe.

450

Chapter 15

4.2.10 Yanggu County According to Diaocha Lu, Yanggu county had a population of 291,000 inhabitants, 45 businesses corresponding to only 4,000 people—a suggestion that the businesses were all in the county capital. It was recorded in Yanggu Xian Zhi that during the Xianfeng period (1851–1861), there were only 400 households and a population of 2,000 in the county capital. However, the population increased to 7,000 in 1949. If the population figures of the county in 1910 were reliable, that would mean a substantial increase in the population during the period of the Republic of China (1912–1949). However, the reality was a decline of the river transport economy that had a negative effect on the economy of counties along the river route. If we assume the average annual growth rate was 5‰, then the population of the county in 1910 would have been 6,000. According to Diaocha Lu, in the days when the river transport was still vibrant, Zhangqiu town was more prosperous than Yanggu and Shouzhang county capital. Acheng town, which was situated at a key point on the north-south water route, witnessed the gatherings of tradesmen and merchants. In addition, there was Qiji town, which had an important water transport pier and was known for its six-city doors, four gates, and a total of 14 streets, including six from north to south and eight more from east to west.37 Zhangqiu was located adjacent to Yanggu and Shouzhang counties, and it was considered an extension of the big town of Shouzhang, which had a population larger than that of the county capital. Similarly, to estimate the population of Acheng and Qiji towns, there is a need to refer to that of Yanggu county capital and those of the same level. At the end of the Qing Dynasty, the two towns declined because of a reduction of river transport activities. However, it was unlikely they were reduced immediately to average-scale towns. We estimate that each town had a population of 5,000, and in 1910 the whole county had a population of 16,000. 4.2.11 Qingcheng County According to Diaocha Lu, the whole county had four towns, 52,000 residents, and 48 businesses with an urban population that corresponded to 4,000. In 1948, Gaoyuan and Qingcheng merged into Gaoqing county, and the county capital was relocated in the late Qing Dynasty to Chengtian town of the original Gaoyuan county.38 Therefore, we estimate that in 1919, the county capital 37 Yanggu Xian Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1991). Yanggu Xian Zhi (pp. 37–39). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. 38 Gaoqing Xian Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1991). Gaoqing Xian Zhi (p. 39). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

Urban Population of Shandong Province

451

of Qingcheng had a population of 2,000, while the remaining four towns had a total population of 2,000. In other words, there were only about seven businesses in each town in Qingcheng county. There is evidence to support this estimate. According to Diaocha Lu, Gaoyuan county had 24 businesses and two towns. If we assume that all the businesses were in the county capital, the corresponding population would have only been 2,000. These two numbers match, thereby indicating that our assumption is correct. It is also worth mentioning that in the documents, “zhen” (town) and “jizhen” (gathering town) refer to two concepts. According to Diaocha Lu, Heze county had a population of 375,000, 132 businesses, and 70 jizhen. Obviously, the jizhen in Heze was not the same as the zhen in Diaocha Lu. If we assume that there were only four towns and about 80 businesses in Heze, the whole county would have had 212 businesses. However, according to Heze Shi Zhi, by the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), Heze city had 13 cloth shops, four oil and tobacco shops, and over 150 catering shops.39 The number of shops belonging to other lines of business was too small in comparison with the number of catering shops. Therefore, we can conclude that the previous estimate that the whole county had 212 businesses was not too irrational. We therefore estimate that the county capital had a population of 12,000, and an urban population of 19,000. This number is consistent with the records of Heze Shi Zhi, which indicate that in 1949, the urban non-agricultural population was 19,000.40 In addition, some regions have a low level of urbanization, and therefore very small county headquarters and no towns. According to Diaocha Lu, Jiaxiang county had 32 businesses, corresponding to 3,000 residents in the county capital. By 1949, the population was still 3,000, the urban population of the whole county 5,000.41 The case of Qidong was quite typical. In the late Qing Dynasty, due to the erosion from the Yellow River, most of Qidong county was damaged. A number of businesses then bought 14 mu of land distant from the riverbank and started the reconstruction of the county. According to Diaocha Lu, although Qidong county had 122 businesses, it only had ten towns. If we assume that each corresponded to 10 businesses, there would be only 22 businesses in the county capital. Because the county and its city were too 39

Shandong Sheng Heze Shi Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Heze Shi Zhi (p. 233). Jinan: Qilu shushe. 40 Shandong Sheng Heze Shi Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Heze Shi Zhi (p. 56). Jinan: Qilu shushe. 41 Shandong Sheng Jiaxiang Xian Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1997). Jiaxiang Xian Zhi (pp. 58, 117). Jinan: Shandong renmin Publishing House.

452

Chapter 15

small, after 1949, Qidong county became part of Gaoqing county. While there were places named towns under Qidong county, they were actually too small to be towns. Boping also had no towns. According to Diaocha Lu, Boping had only 31 businesses, while Nong Shang Biao IV shows a record of 115 businesses corresponding to an urban population of 10,000, which appears reasonable. Moreover, in regions with convenient transportation, some particularly small county headquarters required a more careful approach in estimating their population. An example is Zouxian county which, according to Diaocha Lu, had seven towns with a total population of 246,000. Although these towns were “well-known villages and towns within the borders of the county  … they all were commercially under-developed.” The record also shows that the county had 48 businesses, including five shops, established after 1912, specialized in selling machine-made clothes. If we assume that all these businesses were concentrated in the county capital, then the population would only be 4,000. However, it was recorded in Nong Shang Biao II that the county had 83 businesses, corresponding to 7,000 residents. In 1948, the population of the county capital was 12,00042—a number consistent with the data in Nong Shang Biao II. It, therefore, can be assumed that the recorded businesses in Nong Shang Biao II were all businesses in the county capital. This leads us to assume that the population of the county capital, which was also the urban population of the whole county, was 10,000 in 1919. Finally, we should be careful with the records showing either a small population or a particularly large number of businesses. According to Diaocha Lu, Mengyi county had a population of 181,000, no town, but as many as 300 businesses. It is equally mentioned in the book that “because transportation was inconvenient, there was no significant town, and therefore, the county was especially depressed commercially.” The vast discrepancy in the descriptions suggests that a different criterion was applied when documenting the number of businesses in Mengyi county. As s result, we do not discuss the data in detail at this juncture. See Diagram 9 for the relationships between the entire population and urban population of the following 26 counties which had convenient transportation: Qihe, Zichuan, Changqing, Tai’an, Ziyang, Qufu, Ningyang, Tengxian, Yuncheng, Laiyang, Changyi, Gaomi, Yidu, Linzi, Shouguang, Changle, Anqiu, Lingxian, Zouxian, Linqu, Guantao, Wucheng, Shouzhang, Xiajin, Qixia, and Pingdu. 42

Shandong Sheng Zouxian Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1986). Zouxian Jian Zhi (internal publication) (p. 56).

453

Urban Population of Shandong Province

See Diagram 10 for the relationships between the whole population and urban population of the following 48 counties which had difficult traffic: Zouping, Huantai, Qidong, Jiyang, Xintai, Laiwu, Feicheng, Huimin, Yangxin, Lijin, Le ling, Shanghe, Sishui, Wenshang, Jiaxiang, Yutai, Linyi, Feixian, Yishui, Caoxian, Shanxian, Chengwu, Juye, Liaocheng, Boping, Qingping, Guanxian, Enxian, Linyi, Dong’e, Zhaocheng, Dongping, Wenshang, Heze, Tancheng, Jinxiang, Deping, Boxing, Gaotang, Zhaoyuan, Gaoyuan, Guancheng, Chiping, Dingtao, Yanggu, Qingcheng, Binxian, and Zhanhua. From diagrams 9 and 10, it can be concluded that the urban population of a county was closely related to the total population of the county in regions that were either accessible or inaccessible in terms of transportation. Furthermore, the levels of correlation were also quite similar. See Diagram 11 for the relationships between the county population and the number of businesses in 74 counties, including Qihe and Zouping, after combining the data of regions with convenient transportation and those with difficult transportation. It can be concluded that in regions where modern transportation had no impact, the scale of commercialization and urbanization of a county was mostly determined by the size of its population.

popula�on of county towner 45 40

y = 0.0411x + 4.1477 R² = 0.673

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

0

Diagram 9

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

The relationships between the total population and urban population of 26 counties, including Qihe

454

Chapter 15

popula�on of county towner 60 50

y = 0.0632x - 0.1774 R² = 0.6717

40 30 20 10 0

0

Diagram 10

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Relationships between the total population and urban population of 48 counties including Zouping

popula�on of county towner 60 y = 0.05x + 2.3173 R² = 0.642

50 40 30 20 10 0

0

Diagram 11

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Relationships between the total population and urban population of 74 counties including Qihe and Zouping

800

Urban Population of Shandong Province

5

455

Verification and Conclusion

5.1 About Prefectural Capitals As indicated in Appendix 8, we estimate that Yidu county had a population of 22,000 based on the number of businesses in the county. However, according to Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi, the population was 50,000. Similarly, as the Appendix indicates, we estimated that Linyi county capital, which was the capital of Yizhou fu (prefecture), had a population of 40,000, while the corresponding number in Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi was 1000,000. We also estimated that Heze county capital, which was the capital of Caozhou fu (prefecture), had a population of 15,000 instead of the 50,000 recorded in Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi, which also mentions that “the commercial area was along the street between the eastern and western gates, and had very few shops.” Our estimate for Liaocheng county capital, which was the capital of Dongchang fu (prefecture), was 12,000 as opposed to the over 20,000 recorded in Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi, which also maintains “the households were relatively prosperous, although not as prosperous as in the old days.” Finally, we estimated that Huimin county capital, which was the prefectural capital of Wuding, had a population of 9,000 as opposed to the 40,000 in Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi. In short, with regard to the population of the prefectural capitals, the documented numbers in Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi were much larger than our estimates. Based on the 1953 census, which indicates that Linqing, the smallest city among the ten cities of Shangdong province, had a population of 4,6000 and on the knowledge that western Shandong province was not severely damaged by the war, we determine that the above-mentioned population data of prefectural capitals were largely exaggerated. 5.2 About the County Capitals Due to a lack of data, the population of at least 12 counties, including Rizhao, as demonstrated in the Appendix, cannot be empirically obtained, but can be estimated according to the model in Diagram 9: Y = 0.05 X + 2.3. As to the numbers of the rest of the counties, they can be verified on local documents. On the basis of the above model, we estimated that the population of Rizhao county capital was 27,000. According to Diaocha Lu, Rizhao county capital had 15 well-known businesses, and it was “not particularly prosperous.” The condition, as explained in Rizhao Xian Zhi, is that “roving bandits active in Chaohe regions, Jiangsu province, looted some of the businesses.” Such conditions were found in many cities. Rizhao Xian Zhi also mentions that “toward the end of the Qing Dynasty, Shijiu, Taoluo, Jiacang, Andongwei, and Rizhao city gradually

456

Chapter 15

became commercially important towns.”43 Within these counties, the county capital, Taoluo, and Andonwei were the three districts where, according to Diaocha Lu, the garrisons were stationed. With regard to the businesses, Rizhao Xian Zhi also maintains: “At the end of the Qing Dynasty, Guoxi, native Shanxi, came here to sell local products. Business grew gradually. In addition to selling local products, there was expansion into groceries, seafood, and tobacco, that culminated in the formation of 72 businesses, which engaged in inter-regional trading, including with Shanghai, Dalian, and Lianyungang.” However, in terms of individual towns, by the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), Jiacang had over 30 businesses, and Shijiusuo had over 70. These were in addition to the over 30 inns and 100 small shops. In other words, before 1916, there were more than 230 businesses in the two towns of Jiacang and Shiju. If we do not consider the small shops, there would still be 130 businesses. Rizhao county capital was not the county’s commercial center, but together with TaoLuo and Andon, it is possible that the whole county could have had approximately 300 relatively large businesses, which would correspond to an urban population of 27,000—the same population figure as in the model above. According to the model, Zhucheng county had an urban population of 40,000. It was mentioned in Diaocha Lu that Zhucheng county had only nine businesses and that the county was “repeatedly damaged by war, which caused great loss and led to the severe decline of businesses.” According to Zhucheng Xian Zhi, “in 1904 (Guangxu 30th year), the number of individual businessmen within the territory reached 12,479, among whom 3,248 left for regions like Qingdao, Yantai, and Fengtian for trade and other lines of work. In the early years of the Republic of China, due to the war, individual businessmen could not afford to incur heavy losses, so they had to shut down or suspend their business activities.” It appears that it was indeed the war in the early years of the Republic of China (1912–1949) that had caused the full collapse of businesses in Zhucheng. If we assume that the urban population of the county was, indeed, 40,000, then each business would then correspond to 3.2 people—close to the ratio of Jining, which was 3.4 people per business. It is noteworthy that the results obtained from the above model did not take into account the damage from the war in the early years of the Republic of China (1912–1949). Zhucheng Xian Zhi also mentions that in 1934, “the relatively large businesses within the territory grew to a few hundred, including more than 200 larger and more than 100 smaller businesses that were in the county capital.” If we assume that each 43 Rizhao Shi Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1994). Rizhao Shi Zhi (pp. 331–332). Jinan: Qilu shushe.

Urban Population of Shandong Province

457

large business corresponded to 90 people, the population of the county capital would be around 18,000. In fact, the population of the county was 19,000 in 1936, 13,000 in 1949, and 5,000 in 1956.44 Therefore, the recorded population of the county capital in Zhucheng Xian Zhi was not the non-agricultural population; instead, the non-agricultural population outside the county capital should be counted as non-agricultural. In short, we can conclude that the level of urbanization in Zhucheng did not change much. On basis of the above model, we estimate that the population of Pingyin county capital was 9,000. According to Diaocha Lu, Pingyin county capital had “ten private banks” and was “in recent years, a little prosperous.” The book mentions that by the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), the county had 80 relatively large businesses including salt shops, pickle shops, and inns, including 40 that were located in the county capital while the rest were distributed in the relatively larger villages and towns such as Dong’e (the original Dong’e county capital), Xiaozhi, Kongcun, Luanwan, and Jiuxian.45 If we add the 10 private banks and 50 businesses in the county capital, the whole county would then have 90 businesses, corresponding to an urban population of 8,000—a number close to our estimate. According to Diaocha Lu, Dingtao county had 35 businesses and three towns. If we assume that each town had 20 businesses, the whole county would then have 95 businesses. Based on the number of businesses, we determined that the urban population of the whole county was 9,000. According to Dingtao Xian Zhi, “by the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), the whole county had 98 private businesses.” The relatively famous businesses were located on a few streets in the county capital,46 which corresponded to 9,000 people. Based on the above model, we determine that the population of Dingtao county capital was 11,000. The results of the above three ways of estimation can match basically. 5.3 Conclusion As indicated in the Appendix, the correlation between the population of individual counties and their respective urban population still stands, even after using empirically verified data from Diaocha Lu and disregarding data that has 44 Shandong Sheng Zhucheng Shi Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1992). Zhucheng Shi Zhi (pp. 119–297). Jinan: Shandong renmin Publishing House. 45 Pingyin Xian Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1991). Pingyin Xian Zhi (p. 250). Jinan: Jinan Publishing House. 46 Shandong Sheng Dingtao Xian Xian Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1999). Dingtao Xian Zhi (p. 305). Jinan: Qilu shushe.

458 Table 37

Chapter 15 Population and urbanization ratios of counties in Shandong province in 1919. Unit: /1,000 people

County name

County population

Commercial ports and mines Fushan 292 Licheng 616 Jiaoxian 515 Changshan 233

Adjusted business numbers

Towns or ports

Urban population

1650 2073 1837 685

1 4 3 1

180 220 140 65

954 302 282 495 369 293 618

6 6 2 4 3 6 5

86 27 9 30 22 26 54

Regions with convenient transportation Qihe 291 120 Zichuan 270 160 Changqing 379 233 Tai’an 620 322 Ziyang 167 202 Qufu 183 117 Ningyang 298 135 Tengxian 588 383 Yuncheng 673 455 Laiyang 611 244 Changyi 526 330 Gaomi 411 208 Yidu 440 319

0 2 3 5 4 5 6 6 6 3 5 4 4

11 14 21 29 18 11 12 34 41 22 30 19 29

Regions with inconvenient transportation Zouping 143 133 Huantai 222 275 Qidong 119 122

4 2 10

12 25 11

Regions with developed transportation Jimo 446 Wenden 378 Rongcheng 185 Haiyang 288 Penglai 277 Mouping 414 Yexian 444

459

Urban Population of Shandong Province

County name

County population

Adjusted business numbers

Towns or ports

Urban population

Weixian Huangxian Yixian Boshan

497 371 297 131

910 724 284 200

7 6 3 4

86 37 37 48

Dexian Pingyuan Yucheng Zhangqiu Jining Linqing

287 142 212 457 260 234

870 260 456 463 365 210

3 6 3 9 2 4

69 23 31 41 67 36

Linzi Shouguang Changle Anqiu Lingxian Zouxian Linqu Guantao Wucheng Shouzhang Xiajin Qixia Pingdu

143 463 201 473 161 246 347 171 165 435 188 301 617

112 241 178 222 80 110 200 128 114 183 135 303 240

6 2 2 8 6 7 2 5 3 1 4 5 5

10 22 16 20 7 10 18 12 10 16 12 27 22

Qingping Guanxian Enxian

123 162 201

153 121 130

6 4 3

14 11 12

460 Table 37

Chapter 15 Population and urbanization ratios of counties in Shandong province (cont.)

County name

County population

Adjusted business numbers

Towns or ports

Urban population

Jiyang Xintai Laiwu Feicheng Huimin Yangxin Lijin Leling Shanghe Sishui Jiaxiang Yutai Linyi Feixian Yishui Caoxian Shanxian Chengwu Juye Liaocheng Boping

253 147 362 285 322 229 136 444 320 170 149 196 670 415 513 423 393 189 352 182 170

286 72 275 210 160 195 90 377 105 132 32 111 623 405 230 380 269 56 343 127 115

5 1 1 2 6 4 2 3 4 3 0 2 6 5 7 3 4 0 4 6 0

26 6 25 19 14 18 8 34 9 12 3 10 56 36 21 34 24 5 31 11 10

Estimated population Rizhao 500 Zhucheng 750 Fanxian 136 Puxian 380 Wudi 181 Putai 97

303 442 101 237 126 79

4 3 7 6 4 2

27 40 9 21 11 7

Note: The data marked in italics has been adjusted according to our estimation, the process of which see the body of this chapter.

been adjusted. The values of each variable are not significantly different, and therefore, are not listed one by one here. In short, the relationship between the urban population of a county (Y) and the total population of that county (X) in

461

Urban Population of Shandong Province

County name

County population

Adjusted business numbers

Towns or ports

Urban population

Linyi Dong’e Chaocheng Dongping Wenshang Heze Tancheng Jinxiang Deping Boxing Qiuxian Gaotang Zhaoyuan Gaoyuan Guancheng Chiping Dingtao Binxian Zhanhua Yanggu Qingcheng

126 291 158 343 372 375 482 335 227 218 73 142 200 72 63 198 176 225 155 291 52

162 169 125 190 195 212 216 151 155 109 85 126 124 44 52 115 95 86 71 120 48

4 2 4 7 6 4 4 4 6 4 5 5 5 2 3 4 3 2 4 2 4

15 15 11 17 18 19 19 14 14 10 8 11 11 4 5 10 9 8 6 16 4

Juxian Guangrao Pingyin Tangyi Shenxian Mengyin

725 320 141 173 118 181

428 203 104 122 91 126

4 4 4 4 2 0

39 18 9 11 8 11

regions that were not impacted by modern transportation in Shandong province in 1919 can be expressed using the model: Y = 0.05X + 2.3. The same model can also be applied to cases in the other regions of northern China (huabei).

462

Chapter 15

6

Conversion of the Model

The model of the relationship between the population of counties in Shandong and their respective urban population in 1919 can also be applied to other provinces in Northern China with population records similar to the counties in Shandong in 1919. However, considering that other provinces in Northern China do not have such data and that there is a high correlation between the 1919 data of individual counties in Shandong and the corresponding 1953 data, we believe that we can obtain the urban population figures of the counties in Northern China in 1919 by consulting the corresponding data of 1953. It should be noted that, in addition to the 1910 census, both Nong Shang Biao II and Bai Meichu’s (1876–1940) Lu Yu Jin San Sheng Zhi used 1910 as the starting year of measurement. Furthermore, the estimated urban population numbers in the counties in Northern China from our model were the numbers for 1910, as in the case of Shandong. See Diagram 12 for the relationship between the population of counties in Shandong province in 1915 and in 1953, respectively. In this analysis, because the administrative districts of both Shouzhang and Jiaxiang counties were too complex, we treat them together as a unit. Also, we have to rule out the data of the three counties of Feixian, Yishui, and Leling because it is complex due to the frequent changes of administrative districts. 60 y = 0.0333x + 3.1106 R² = 0.6853

50 40 30 20 10 0

0

Diagram 12

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Relationship between the population of counties in Shandong province in 1915 and in 1953 respectively

463

Urban Population of Shandong Province 1400 1200

y = 1.4019x + 18.013 R² = 0.827

1000 800 600 400 200 0

0

Diagram 13

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Relationship between the urban population of counties in Shandong province in 1910 and the population of corresponding counties in 1953

Here is how we treat the data: We match the counties in 1953 with the corresponding counties in 1915. For example, there was Youjiao county and Jiaonan county in 1953, the latter being part of Jiaoxian county. By combing the data of the two counties, we came up with the data of Jiaoxian county in 1915. There were also cases in which a county was part of several counties (represented by N). In those cases, we divided the county data by N, added the result with the existing 1915 number of each of the relevant counties, and came up with an adjusted version of the 1915 data using the 1953 data. In this analysis, commercial ports, industrial and mining areas, in addition to regions with developed transportation, were not included. In addition, the data of Jiaxiang county and Shouzhang county were treated as if the localities were one unit. We also did not include the data of Lexian county because we found that the 1953 figures were inconceivably smaller than the 1915 figures. As for Yishui and Laiyang counties, we did not include them because while the documented population of the two counties in 1953 was close to one million, respectively, their urban population seemed suspiciously small, only over 20,000 each. See Diagram 13 for the relationship between the population of other counties in 1919 and in 1953. In summary, we can estimate the urban population of the counties in other northern Chinese provinces in 1910 with either convenient or difficult transportation using the model: Y = 0.0333 X + 3.0327.

Chapter 16

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty, the Examples of Zhili and Henan In addition to examining, one by one, the population of several important administrative cities and commercial cities in Zhili, this section estimates cities without population records using the population classification model from the study of the urban population in Shandong. This section also consults the data of Nong Shang (Agriculture and Commerce) Table II, Nongshang Table I, and Jing Zhi Sui Cha Re Wu Sheng Qu Zhi, the first volume of Zhonghua Minguo Sheng Qu Quan Zhi by Bai Meichu (1925), and the newly compiled local records.1 1

Zhili

Beijing and Tianjin 1.1 According to Han Guanghui (1996)’s research, in 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year), the population of inner and outer cities and other urban areas in Beijing totaled 1.129 million.2 From 1781 (Qianlong 46th year), the average annual growth rate of the population was 1‰. According to Tianjin Zhi, in 1909, the population of Tianjin city was 420,000. Bai Meichu (1925), for his part, maintained the population of Tianjin based on the 1910 survey, was 556,000. This book uses this number. Provincial Capitals and Prefectural Capitals 1.2 1.2.1 Baoding Fu According to Bai Meichu (1925), Baoding had a population of 80,000. In 1953, the population of Baoding city was 197,000. This means that the average annual population growth rate was as high as 24‰—a rate that appears too high. If

1 Each volume of Bai’s Jing Zhi Sui Cha Re Wu Sheng Qu Zhi consists of five books. Considering that the volumes had no continuous page numbers, we will not cite page numbers from this source in this section. 2 Han, G. (1996). Beijing Lishi Renkou Dili (Historical Population Geography of Beijing) (pp. 126–128). Beijing: Beijing University Publishing House.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_017

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

465

we assume the average annual growth rate was 6‰, then the population in 1910 was 84,000. 1.2.2 Chengde Fu According to Hukou Zhi, the third category in Chengde Xian Zhi in 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year), the population of Chengde prefectural city was 99,000. However, the record of 1953 shows a population of only 93,000. The population decrease is because, after the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), Chengde lost its political status. 1.2.3 Xuanhua Fu According to Vol. 10 of Xuanhua Fu Zhi edited in the Qianlong period (1736– 1796), in 1757 (Qianlong 22th year), Xuanhua prefectural city had a population of 38,000. In 1953, its population was as high as 114,000—only inferior to the population of Zhangjiakou, Baoding and Qinhuangdao. It is speculated that at the end of the Qing Dynasty, the resident population and migrant population of Xuanhua Prefectural Capital (prefectural city) reached 100,000 inhabitants. Xuanhua had the characteristics of a wei-suo city, meaning the prefectural city had a large population and also counties. For example, according to Vol. 4 of Xining Xian Xin Zhi edited in the Tongzhi period (1862–1874) and Vol. 1 of Baoan Zhou Xu Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), the population of Xining and Baoan counties was 25,000 and 14,000, respectively, during the late Qing Dynasty. According to Vol. 2 of Huai’an Xian Zhi, in 1934, the county headquarters of Huai’an had a population of 12,000. Due to the continuous decline in the population, it was estimated that its population at the end of the Qing Dynasty was 13,000. According to Nongshang Table II, Weixian county’s data consisting of 169 businesses that corresponded to 15,000 inhabitants is consistent with the data of Bai Meichu (1925). We use the equation Y = 0.0333 X + 3.0327 to estimate the urban population of the individual counties in 1910. X represents the population of the whole county in 1953, while Y represents the urban population in 1910. Thanks to the trade relations with Russia, which led to busy commercial ports and prosperous businesses in the middle and late Qing Dynasty, the status of Xuanhua fu (prefecture) in Zhili was equivalent to that of Jiaodong region in Shandong Province. Therefore, the population estimates are all low. The population of the county headquarters of Weixian county is 1.4 times the estimated number, 2.3 times in the population of the cases of Bao’an and Huai’an, 5 times in the case of Xining. Therefore, we double the estimates of the population of the five counties of Wanquan, Huailai, Yanqing, Chicheng and Longmen in 1910.

466

Chapter 16

1.2.4 Hejian Fu According to Nongshang Table II, Hejian had 130 businesses corresponding to a population of 12,000. However, according to Bai Meichu (1925), the population of the prefectural city was 10,000, consistent with our estimate of the population of Hejian county headquarters in this section. 1.2.5 Yongping Fu According to Nongshang Table II, Yongping prefectural city had only 25 businesses corresponding to an abnormally small population of 2,000 inhabitants. Based on the records in Lulong Xian Zhi, Lulong county headquarters, Yongping prefectural city, was prosperous during the Ming and Qing dynasties. Furthermore, during the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), in regions nearby the cities, two big markets and two small markets were held every ten days. The records also emphasize that “During the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), the prefectural city withered.” Therefore, we estimate, using the Shandong model, that the urban population of Lulong county was 7,000. Considering that the non-agricultural population of the county was only 5,000 in 1949, we consider our estimate to be reliable.3 1.2.6 Zhengding Fu According to Nongshang Table II, in 1910, there were 173 businesses registered in Zhengding county, corresponding to a population of 16,000 inhabitants. However, Zhengding Xian Zhi maintains during the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), Zhengding county had over 400 businesses, mostly in the city. Therefore, the businesses registered in Nongshang Table II were large businesses. In the early days of the Republic of China (1912–1949), due to the rise of Shijiazhuang, trade and commerce in Zhengding prefectural city gradually declined. Only the businesses dealing in cotton and cloth remained very prosperous. In 1949, the county had a total population of 264,000, including a 7,000 non-agricultural4 population. Therefore, we use the data from Nongshang Table II. 1.2.7 Shunde Fu Bai Meichu (1925) maintains that Xingtai, the prefectural capital, had a population of 80,000, accounting for one-third of the county’s population. As many as 50,000 people were engaged in fur processing in the county. According to 3 Lulong Records Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1994). Lulong Xian Zhi (pp. 130–131, 640). Tianjin: Tianjin renmin Publishing House. 4 Hebei Sheng Zhengding Xian Difang Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1992). Zhengding Xian Zhi (pp. 190, 370–371). Beijing: Zhongguo chengshi Publishing House.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

467

Xingtai Shi Zhi, the fur industry, especially between Qilihe River and Dashahe River in the southern suburbs in Xingtai, had a long history. Generations of residents opened fur workshops there, and leather shops in Xingtai. After the opening of the Beijing-Han Railway, Xingtai’s fur industry developed further as the number of fur shops increased to over 50. After 1917, five areas with concentrated fur businesses were formed in the prefectural capital of Xingtai.5 Considering all information, we believe Bai fur workers (including their families) accounted for 50,000 of the prefectural capital population. Bai’s estimate appeared correct since the fur workshops were concentrated in the southern suburbs, already part of Xingtai city. Therefore, we can set the population of Xingtai city in 1910 at 60,000. Nongshang Table II only recorded 125 registered businesses in Xingtai, which probably did not include the fur workshops. 1.2.8 Daming Fu According to Daming Xian Zhi, “during the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), there were 226 famous businesses and traditional restaurants,”6 which corresponded to a population of 20,000 inhabitants. However, Nongshang Table II only accounts for 165 businesses—possibly “famous businesses” mentioned in Daming Xian Zhi, which corresponded to a population of 15,000 inhabitants. This is consistent with Bai Meichu (1925)’s record, which shows a population of 17,000. 1.2.9 Quangping Fu According to Nongshang Table II, Yongnian county had 261 businesses, probably including registered small traders. However, according to Yongnian Xian Zhi, Yongnian county was commercially underdeveloped during the Republic of China (1912–1949), with only 115 registered businesses across the county in 1931. It is also claimed that Quangping fu (prefecture)’s urban population during the Guangxu period (1875–1908) was 11,000, a figure close to the 12,000 inhabitants obtained from the Shandong model.7 In short, in terms of the registered numbers of businesses in the prefectural cities noted in Nongshang Table II, all were correct, except those of Yongping and Guangping: The recorded number of Yongping was too small, while that of Guangping was too big. 5 Xingtai shi difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (2000). Xingtai Shi Zhi (p. 362). Beijing: Zhongguo duiwai fanyi Publishing House. 6 Geng, B. (1994). Fuyang He Hengshui Matou Hua Jiu. In Daming xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.), Daming Xian Zhi (p. 278). Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. 7 Yongnian Xian Difang Zhi Compilation Committee. (2002). Yongnian Xian Zhi (p. 78, 148–149, 158). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

468

Chapter 16

1.3 Commercial Ports and Industrial Cities Qinhuangdao 1.3.1 Qinghuadao turned into a commercial port in 1898, with a population of 16,000 inhabitants in 1922 and 52,000 in 1948.8 Despite this growth rate, the population was estimated to be only 9,000 inhabitants in 1910. According to Vol. 14 of Linyu Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), in 1876, the population of Linyu county headquarters was 19,000, and the total population of the county headquarters and its gate area in 1925 was 27,000, meaning there was an average annual population growth rate of 7‰. Therefore, we estimate that, in 1910, the population of Shanhaiguan Town, Linyu county headquarters, was about 25,000. Considering that, in Nongshang Table II, Shanhaiguan had more than 672 registered businesses, Bai Meichu (1925)’s record of only a population of 15,000 in Shanhaiguan, appears too insignificant. 1.3.2 Tangshan Tangshan was an emerging industrial city. According to Nongshang Table II, in 1910, there were 402 registered businesses in Tangshan, corresponding to a population as high as 36,000 inhabitants. Bai Meichu (1925), however, only recorded a population of 15,000—a figure that appears insignificant. 1.3.3 Tongzhou Tongzhou city was a famous city in the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644); however, no records exist of the city’s population during the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912). Vol. 5 of Tong Xian Zhi Yao edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) mentions that the first police district, which refers to the urban area, had a population of 50,000 in 1936—roughly the same as Jining and other water transport cities during the Qianlong period (1736–1796). According to Bai Meichu (1925), Tongxian county “now in decline” had a population of 20,000 inside and outside the city. There is reason to believe that Tongxian county headquarters in 1910 still had a population of 40,000. In 1953, however, Tongzhou city had a population of 44,000. 1.3.4 Zhangjiakou Zhangjiakou significantly developed from the trade with Russia, and was able to become an important commercial port in the north. In 1883 (Guangxu 9th year), the Siberian Railway in Russian was completed. Russian merchants then chose to transit in Tianjin and reach Vladivostok by water, a pattern that 8 Qinhuangdao shi haigang qu difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed). (1990). Haigang Qu Zhi (internal publication) (p. 693).

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

469

led to the decline of Zhangjiakou. According to Vol. 3 of Wanquan Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), Zhangjiakou city had a population of 127,000 in 1923, which dropped to 78,000 in 1933. Based on this situation, we can estimate that in 1910, the population of Zhangjiakou city was at least 150,000. Meanwhile, Nongshang Table II indicates there were 2,004 businesses in Zhangjiakou. Therefore, assuming 90 people worked in a business, the population would be a credible 180,000. Therefore, we use the data from Nongshang Table II. 1.4 Regular Counties For prefectures and counties that have no urban population record in 1910, we apply the Shandong model: Y = 0.0333 X + 3.0327 (X being the population of the individual counties in 1953) in our estimation of their urban population. Generally speaking, an estimate of the urban population obtained from the model is the same or similar to that in Nongshang Table II. Also, it must be backed by local historical happenings. For estimates not consistent with the evidence from other sources, we consulted the newly compiled local journals, Bai Meichu’s Jing Zhi Sui Cha Re Wu Sheng Qu Zhi and other resources. 1.4.1 Shuntian Fu Based on the Shandong model, we obtained the urban population estimates of the 21 counties and towns, including Liangxiang and Fangshan, in 1910. It is noteworthy that the estimates of Liangxiang, Changping, Pinggu, Gu’an, Xianghe, Dacheng, and Zhuozhou counties were either the same or similar to the corresponding registered businesses numbers in Nongshang Table. For example, according to Nongshang Table II, there were 80 businesses in Changping county, corresponding to a population of 7,00. Our estimate that was based on the mode was 9,000. While the figures for Gu’an county matched, those of Pinggu county and Xianghe county, were 5,000 and 6,000 respectively; for Zhuozhou county, they were 10,000 and 9,000. According to Nongshang Table I, Changxindian of Liangxiang had 30 businesses corresponding to a population of 3,000—a figure close to our estimate of 4,000. Changxindian, located on the outskirts of Beijing, was a famous commercial town. However, Nongshang Table III contains two numbers with regard to the glass factory association in Liangxiang: 46 and 110 both for the number of business in 1913. It was impossible to tell which number was correct, therefore, both were discarded. According to Nongshang Table II, Dacheng county had only 31 businesses corresponding to a population of 3,000, from which we estimate that the urban population was 7,000. In 1949, the non-agricultural population of the county was as high as 14,000. We equally understand that in the 1990s, the

470

Chapter 16

non-agricultural population of the county was only 12,000, including an urban population in 1949 of only 7,000 based on our estimate. It was mentioned in Dacheng Xian Zhi that in 1830 (Daoguang 10th year) 23 businesses from Shanxi set up shop in Dacheng county, claiming the county was “indispensable to the capital with traders and merchants gathering here.” In addition, it was asserted the county headquarters had narrow streets and over 50 private businesses.9 However, our understanding is that in 1910 the whole county had 80 businesses—a number close to our estimate. According to Nongshang Table II, Lutai town in Ninghe county had 45 businesses corresponding to a population of 4,000. The county’s urban population, including the population of Ninghe, Fengtai, Panzhuang, and other towns, should have been much more, approximately 9,000 and very close to our estimate. Nongshang Table I and Nongshang Table III contain the numbers of businesses in Jixian county, which were 52 and 35, corresponding to a population of only 5,000 and 3,000, respectively, significantly smaller than our estimated urban population of 12,000. In 1949, the non-agricultural population of the county was 12,000,10 suggesting our estimate of the urban population in 1910 was correct. According to Nongshang Table II, Shengfang town in Wen’an (now under Baxian) had 147 businesses registered with the local commercial association. The 147 businesses corresponded to a population of 13,000. Shengfang Town was a famous commercial town with flourishing industry and commerce on the North China Plain from the Ming and Qing dynasties. According to the Shandong model, the estimated population was only 5,000, a suggestion that it is difficult to estimate the population of big towns based on the model. Eventually, we set the town’s population at 18,000. We refer to the local histories and gazetteers for counties with no record in Nongshang Table. For example, for Miyun County, the 1911 census indicates the county headquarters had a population of 6,757 inhabitants,11 consistent with the estimated urban population of 7,000. Also for Daxing county, the

9

Hebei sheng Dacheng xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1995). Dacheng Xian Zhi (pp. 85, 150, 495–496). Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House. 10 Jixian zhi bianxiu weiyuanhui (Ed.). (1991). Jixian Zhi (p. 186, p. 207). Tianjin: Tianjin shehui kexue yuan Publishing House, Nankai daxue Publishing House. From the agricultural labor population, we can obtain the agricultural population by subtracting the non-agricultural popultion from the county’s population. 11 Miyun xian zhi Compilation Committee. (1998). Miyun Xian Zhi (p. 89). Beijing: Beijing Publishing House.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

471

estimated urban population in 1910 was 7,000, and the non-agricultural population in 1949 was 9,000—figures that match our estimate. 1.4.2 Yongping Fu Our estimates of the population of the five counties of Luanxian, Leting, Qian’an, Changli, and Funing based on Nongshang Table II do match with the Shandong model; consequently, we do not discuss the counties individually. Among these counties, Qian’an county had 145 businesses, which mainly concentrated in Jianchangying town, a gateway city between Mongolia and China. During the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), there were more than 200 shops and warehouses in the town, which was known as the “first in Jingdong” and has the reputation of being the “forever prosperous Jianchangying.”12 1.4.3 Zunhua Fu According to Nongshang Table II, Fengrun county had 262 businesses corresponding to a population of 24,000. We determined that the urban population (including Fengnan county) of Fengrun county was 28,000. Fengnan Xian Zhi maintains that most of the businesses in Fengrun county were concentrated in Fengnan. During the Qianlong period (1736–1796), there were over 200 shops in Daodi town. At the end of the Qing Dynasty, with the opening of the Tangxu Railway and the development of the bristle processing industry, the commercial development of Hetou and Xugezhuang town became unprecedented.13 According to Nongshang Table II, Zunhua county had 57 businesses corresponding to a population of 5,000 and an urban population of 11,000 inhabitants. According to Zunhua Xian Zhi, in the early years of the Republic of China, there were more than 700 businesses in the county headquarters. We are also aware that in 1949, the non-agricultural population of the county was 10,000.14 Therefore, we maintain our estimate based on these figures. 1.4.4 Yizhou The number of businesses in Laishui corresponds to our estimated urban population. According to Nongshang Table II, Guangchang (Laiyuan) had 105 businesses corresponding to a population of 9,000 inhabitants. However, our estimated urban population was only 5,000. Laiyuan Xian Zhi notes that 12 13 14

Qian’an xian difang zhi Compilation Committee bangongshi (Ed.). (1994). Qian’an Xian Zhi (p. 259, p. 532). Bejing: Zhonguo shehui Publishing House. Fengnan xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1990). Fengnan Xian Zhi (p. 289). Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Zunhua xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Zunhua Xian Zhi (p. 129, p. 365). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

472

Chapter 16

there were over 100 businesses in the county in the early years of the Republic of China, but the number grew to over 300 in 1933. Therefore, we can tell that the 125 businesses were all shops. After the Japanese occupation, commerce declined, and in 1949, the population became predominantly agricultural.15 Therefore, we retain our estimate. 1.4.5 Baoding Fu According to Nongshang Table II, Xinji town had 198 businesses, while the old city town had only 121 businesses, corresponding to a population of up to 29,000. In 1910, the urban population of Shulu country (currently renamed Xinji city), the most important fur distribution center in china, was calculated to be only 12,000. It was more prosperous than the county headquarters, known as “the first town in Hebei” ever since the Ming and Qing dynasties. In 1906, the number of businesses in Xinji town alone reached 9,000. The number of people working in the handmade production industry was about the same.16 Meanwhile, it is worthy of note that the Shandong model does not include large towns with industrial and commercial centers. According to Nongshang Table II, Gaoyang had 155 businesses corresponding to a population of 14,000; however, the estimated urban population was only 6,000. At the end of the Qing Dynasty, the textile industry rose in Gaoyang and surrounding counties. Consequently, Gaoyang county headquarters, known as the “Small Tianjinwei,” became the distribution center of yarns and clothes. Before 1937, the county headquarters had about 18,000 residents; however, it was deserted after the Japanese occupation of the county in 1939. We also know that in 1949, the non-agricultural population of the county was only 7,000. Obviously, the aforementioned corresponding population of 14,000 appears credible.17 According to Nongshang Table III, there were 147 businesses in Anguo, corresponding to a population of 13,000. In 1935, the population of the county headquarters was 8,000; meanwhile, in 1949, the non-agricultural population of the county was 10,000.18 Anguo county headquarters was the distribution center of northern medicinal materials, and like Gaoyang, the county experienced the same commercial decline. 15 16 17 18

Laiyuan xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1998). Laiyuan Xian Zhi (pp. 161, 398–399). Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Xinji shi difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1996). Xinji Shi Ji (pp. 82, 116–117, 314). Beijing: Zhongguo shuji Publishing House. Gaoyang xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1999). Gaoyang Xian Zhi (p. 77, p. 145, p. 410). Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House. Zhao Ying (Ed.). (1996). Anguo Xian Zhi (pp. 127–130). Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

473

According to Nongshang Table I and Nongshang Table II, there were 96 and 35 businesses, repectively, in Xinqiao town, Lixian county. We suspect that the former refers to the businesses in, the whole county, while the latter refers to those in Xinqiao town, where the commercial association was located. From the above, we understand that the urban population of Lixian county was 9 million, which is close to our estimate of 8,000. In addition, the population figures of Wanxian county and Xiongxian county in Nongshang Table I and Nongshang Table II are also consistent with our estimates. Regarding other counties where there was no record of the number of businesses, our estimates are as follows: Tangxian county headquarters had a population of 1,000 in 1877 (Guangxu 3rd year), while the population of the urban areas of the whole county was 3,000. The corresponding numbers in 1926 were 3,000 and 9,000 respectively.19 Based on these figures, we determine the urban population was 7,000—a figure that appears credible. In Boye county, the estimated urban population was 4,000, and the non-agricultural population was 3,000 in 1949.20 According to Nongshang Table III, Rongcheng county had 51 businesses corresponding to a population of 5,000—a figure consistent with our estimate. 1.4.6 Jizhou According to Nongshang Table I and Nongshang Table II, in Hengshui, there were 157 and 124 businesses, respectively, corresponding to a population of 14,000 and 11,000, respectively. The census counted urban population was only 5,000; however, according to Bai Meichu (1925) there were about 5,000 residents inside and outside Hengshui city, which suggests an overall population of up to 25,000. The Fuyang River, which flows through Hengshui and connects Handan and Tianjin, had a deep channel through which large wooden ships of over 100 tons passed during the seasons when the water level was high.21 However, in 1936, The Report on Hengshui County Hebei Province (“Hebei sheng Hengshui xian difang shiji qingkuang diaocha baogao”) shows a population of only 9,000. According to Bai Meichu (1925), there were hundreds of households in the villages located in the south of Hengshui city, all involved in the business of making writing brushes. For its part, Xiguan village only had dozens of wine-making shops. If we include the porters at the pier in our 19 Hebei sheng tangxian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1999). Tangxian Zhi (p. 135). Shijiazhuang: Hebei renmin Publishing House. 20 Boye xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1996) Boye Xian Zhi (p. 76). Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. 21 Wenshi CPPCC of Hengshui (Ed.). (2002). Hengshui Jingji Shiliao. Shijiazhuang: Hebei People Press. 25.

474

Chapter 16

count, then the population would be even larger. Therefore, it is reasonable to set the population in 1910 at 20,000. Nongshang Table II recorded that there were 120 businesses in Wuyi, corresponding to a population of 11,000. We estimate that the urban population of Wuyi county was 7,000. According to Wuyu Xian Zhi, before the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), there were not many commercial shops and businesses in the county. In the early years of the Republic of China (1912–1949), the number of businessmen grew, and they started to open stores in the county headquarters and major towns. In 1924, the Chamber of Commerce of Wuyi county was re-established, with a total of 219 businesses and 60 county members registering.22 It seems that the number of large businesses in Wuyi county headquarters normally was around 60. We also estimate that the urban population of Jixian county was 9,000. According to Bai Meichu (1925), the population of the county was 11,000, and in 1949, the non-agricultural population of the whole county was 6,000.23 This can be explained by the decline in business due to the war. Therefore, we deem the data credible. Records of Nongshang Table II show that Jixian county had 196 businesses, which probably included a large number of small shops. 1.4.7 Dingzhou According to Nongshang Table II, there were 40 businesses in Dingxian county, which corresponded to a population of 4,000; however, we estimate that the urban population of Dingxian county was 21,000, which is significantly larger than the recorded population. In 1934, the county had an overall population of 348,000 and an urban population of 14,000,24 the latter accounting for 4.1% of the former. Considering the complex changes in the county’s territory, it is difficult to estimate the population of Dingxian county in 1910. The county’s population in 1949 was 591,000. If we assume an average annual growth rate of 5%, the county’s population in 1910 would be 487,000, and if we assume a growth rate of 4.1%, the urban population of Dingxian county would be 20,000, close to our estimated population.

22

Wuyi xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1998). Wuyu Xian Zhi (p. 285, p. 461). Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House. 23 Jixian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Jixian Zhi (pp. 682–690). Beijing: Zhongguo kexue jishu Publishing House. 24 Dingzhou shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1998). Dingzhou Shi Zhi (pp. 193–197). Beijing: Zhongguo chengshi Publishing House.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

475

1.4.8 Shenzhou According to Raoyang Xian Zhi, “in the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), the county’s dozen businesses were mostly concentrated in Dayin village and the county headquarters.” The record is different from that in Nongshang Table II, which indicates 106 businesses. Supposing the non-agricultural population in 1949 was only 3,000,25 the estimated urban population in 1910 would be 6,000. Wuqiang county had a small population with an estimated urban population of only 4,000 in 1910. However, according to Nongshang Table II, there were 105 businesses, corresponding to a population of 9,000. According to the Wuqiang Xian Zhi, during the Guangxu period (1875–1908), there were 144 painting shops near the south gate of the county headquarters alone. In addition, there is mention of the fact that during the Ming and Qing dynasties, most of the commercial shops were small in scale because the transportation was inconvenient. The county experienced a period of commercial prosperity in the early years of the Republic of China (1912–1949), mainly in the county headquarters and Xiaofan town. However, prosperity declined after the Japanese occupation. In 1949, the non-agricultural population was 5,000.26 If we take into consideration Wuqiang’s new year painting business, we can determine the population of the county headquarters, and Xiaofan town possibly reached 9,000 in 1910. 1.4.9 Zhaozhou The corresponding population of the businesses in Zhaoxian county and Ningjin county matches our estimated urban population. Our estimate of the urban population of Longyao in 1910 was 8,000, similar to the non-agricultural population of 7,000 in 1949.27 The other three counties were all small counties, so they will not be discussed here. 1.4.10 Hejian Fu We estimate that the urban population of Gucheng county was 5,000. According to Gucheng Xian Zhi, the Chamber of Commerce of the county was established in Zhengkou town in 1912 (1st year of the Republic of China), with 133 participating firms, corresponding to a population of 12,000. Nongshang Table II maintains there were 115 businesses registered at the County Chambers 25

Gaoyang xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1998). Raoyang Xian Zhi (p. 132, p. 329). Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House. 26 Hebei sheng Wuqiang xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1996). Wuqiang Xian Zhi (p. 93, p. 215, p. 603). Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House. 27 Longyao xian difang zhi Compilation Committee. (1998). Longyao Xian Zhi (p. 198). Beijing: san lian shu dian.

476

Chapter 16

of Commerce, meaning the records are consistent. During the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), Gucheng county had two towns under its jurisdiction, namely Zhengkou, known as “Small Tianjinwei,”28 and Gucheng. Therefore, based on its consistency, we use the data of Gucheng Xian Zhi. According to Nongshang Table II, Wuqiao county had as many as 146 businesses, corresponding to a population of 13,000. However, our estimated urban population was only 8,000. According to Wuqiao Xian Zhi, there were no big towns nor piers in the county. The so-called shops were basically hawkers’ stallers. From 1938 to 1941, there were only more than 20 large or medium-sized firms in the county.29 However, this is understandable considering that Wuqiao was the hometown of acrobatics in China. At the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the People’s Republic of China, a large number of local people were acrobatic performers who traveled to different places to earn a living. Therefore, our estimation that the urban population was 13,000 appears reasonable. According to Nongshang Table II, in Botou town, Jiaohe county, there were 125 businesses, corresponding to a population of 11,000. As indicated in Botou Shi Zhi, in April 1910, ten industries set up branch chambers of commerce in Botou, with over 100 private firms (excluding travelling merchants) registered.30 In other words, together with the businesses registered under the Tianjin Chamber of Commerce, there were about 250 businesses in Botou, corresponding to a population of 23,000. In 1953, Botou city had a population of 28,000. In the case of Prefectural Capital, Xianxian, Hejian, and Suning counties, the corresponding number of businesses appear consistent with the estimated urban population. Therefore, we will not discuss them in detail here. Also given the insignificant differences in the figures, we choose not to discuss Dongguang and Renqiu counties. 1.4.11 Shunde Fu According to Renxian Zhi, in 1911, Renxian county had a total population of 104,000 and a population of 4,000 in the inner and near city region,31 which 28 Gucheng xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1998). Gucheng Xian Zhi (pp. 294–295, 416). Beijing: Zhongguo duiwai fanyi Publishing House. 29 Wuqiao xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1992). Wuqiao Xian Zhi (p. 313). Beijing: Zhonguo shehui Publishing House. 30 Botou shi difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (2000). Botou Shi Zhi (p. 250). Beijing: Zhongguo duiwai fanyi Publishing House. 31 Renxian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (2000). Renxian Zhi (pp. 140–143). Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

477

leads to our estimate that the urban population at the time was 5,000. According to Nongshang Table II, the county had 105 businesses, including small shops. Therefore, the estimated population of other counties is about 5,000. Given the small population numbers, we do not compare the urban population with the non-agricultural population in 1949. 1.4.12 Quangping Fu According to Nongshang Table II, there were 150 businesses in Handan county, corresponding to a population of 14,000—figures that match our estimate of the urban population of the county (including Fengfeng mining area). Since the official opening of Handan station on the Beijing-Hankou Railway, the region flourished commercially. According to Nongshang Table I, there were 154 businesses in Pengcheng town, Cixian county, corresponding to a population of 14,000. According to Nongshang Table II, there were 154 businesses in Pengcheng town, Cixian county, corresponding to a population of 14,000. We estimate that the urban population of the county was only 6,000. Records indicate that in 1929, there were only 5,000 residents in the county headquarters—a figure that is close to our estimate. The same record shows that by 1949, the county headquarters was still like a large village.32 Consequently, we calculate based on our estimate. According to Nongshang Table II, there were 261 businesses in Yongnian county, corresponding to a population of 23,000. During the Guangxu period (1875–1908), the population of the county headquarters was 11,000, and the estimated urban population, in 1910, was 12,000. In 1949, the non-agricultural population of the county was 15,000,33 hence we use our estimate here. As for the three counties of Weixian, Qinghe, and Cixian, the corresponding population of the businesses basically matches the estimated population. 1.4.13 Daming Fu The corresponding number of businesses in Nanle county matches our estimate. The estimated population of Dongming county was 12,000 in 1910, and its urban population in 1949 was 9,000.34 Due to the frequent changes in the administrative area after 1910 and the redefinition of the territory, there could 32

Hebei sheng Quzhou Records bangongshi (Ed). (1997). Quzhou Xian Zhi (pp. 56, 95, 303). Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. 33 Yongnian xian difang zhi Compilation Committee. (2002). Yongnian Xian Zhi (pp. 146–158). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. 34 Shandong sheng Dongming xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1992). Dongming Xian Zhi (p. 127). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.

478

Chapter 16

have been little discrepancy between the two numbers. We estimate that the urban population of Qingfeng county in 1910 was 12,000, and in 1949 the population of the county headquarters was 7,000.35 If we add the population of Gucheng and other towns, the two numbers would be close. According to Puyang Xian Zhi, during the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), there were 320 relatively large businesses in Puyang city, corresponding to a population of 29,000. We estimate that the urban population of Puyang in 1910 was only 21,000. It is also known that in 1964, the population of the county headquarters was 37,000.36 Therefore, we use our estimate here. We can also compare our estimates in this section with the local records from the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the Republic of China (1912–1949). According to Vol. 13 of Luanzhou Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908), in 1896, the urban population of Luanzhou was 6,000, while our estimate was 8,000. Records of Vol. 6 of Xiongxian Xiangtu Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908) indicate that in 1901, the urban population of Xiongxian county was 4,000, while our estimate was 3,000. Furthermore, according to Xin’an Xiangtu Dili edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949), the urban population of Anxin county at the end of the Guangxu period (1875–1908) was 8,000, while our estimate was 5,000. Vol. 7 of Zanhuang Xian Zhi edited in the Guangxu period (1875–1908) indicates that the county’s urban population was about 4,000, while our estimate was 2,000. Furthermore, Vol. 2 of Xinhe Xian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949) indicates that the population of Xinhe was 3,000 million in 1875, the same as our estimate in this section. According to Wangdu Xian Xiangtu Tushuo edited in 1905 (Guangxu 31st year) even though Wangdu county headquarters only had over 600 residents. The small population was caused by the decline of prosperity in the region after the Boxer Movement and the opening of the Beijing-Hankou Railway. Our estimate of the urban population in Duwang county was 5,000. Meanwhile, the records of the Republic of China (1912–1949) had the population of the three counties of Gu’an, Jingxian, and Xianxian at less than 5,000 each, while our estimates were 5,000, 8,000, and 6,000 respectively.37 In short, our estimates of the urban population of the counties under the jurisdiction of Daming fu (prefecture) were based on the Shandong model, and they were significantly 35

Qingfeng xian difang shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1990). Qingfeng Xian Zhi (p. 104). Jinan: Shandong daxue Publishing House. 36 Wang Deying (Ed.). (1989). Puyang Xian Zhi (pp. 224, 452). Beijing: Huayi Publishing House. 37 Vol. 1 of Gu’an Xian Zhi, Vol. 1 of Jingxian Zhi and Vol. 3 of Xianxian Zhi edited in the Republic of China (1912–1949).

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

479

close to the local records despite slight discrepancies. Consequently, we will not adjust the estimated numbers. 1.4.14 Chengde Fu At the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), the Qing Court released reclamation, leading to the influx of Han people. Despite the rapid growth of the population, the development of business and urbanization was much slower. Therefore, the Shandong model cannot be applied to some of the counties reclaimed by immigrants in our estimation of the urban population of individual counties under Chengde fu (prefecture). We estimate that the urban population of some new counties established during the Republic of China (1912–1949) was zero in 1910. Similarly, we set the urban population of the areas occupied by Mongol nomads, including Baarin Left Banner, Baarin Right Banner, and Naiman Banner, at zero. Küriye was the most important commercial center in addition to Chengde. Its commercial culture reached its peak at the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949). In 1919 (8th year of the Republic of China), there were nearly 300 large and small shops in the streets of Küriye. If we assume that 100 of them could be counted as businesses, then the urban population of Küriye was, at most, 9,000 inhabitants. In 1949, the urban population of Küriye was 4,000, resulting from the commercial decline of the late Republic of China.38 After Weichang county was released for reclamation during the Tongzhi period (1862–1874), Han people poured in. Initially, Tianbaoshan town was set up, and Keleigou town, the county headquarters, was established in 1913. According to the survey in 1917, the population of the two towns totaled 3,000.39 Therefore, we determine the 1910 urban population was 3,000. According to Nongshang Table VI, there were 55 businesses in Weichang county, including 50 in Tianbaoshan town. However, each business corresponded to a population of only 30 people. According to Nongshang Table VI, in Chaoyang county, there were 40 businesses in 1915, corresponding to a population of up to 4,000. In terms of Weichang county, we estimate that the urban population of Chaoyang county in 1910 was only 1,000. In comparison, we estimate that the urban population

38 Bao, F. (1986). Jiefang qian Küriye jie shangye gaishu; Liu, Z. (1986). Küriye qi minzu yu renkou, in Küriye qi zhi ziliao huibian, 1, 108, 155–164. 39 Wang, Z. (1987). Minguo shiqi Tianbaoshan zhen gongshang jinrong ye qingkuang. Weichang Wenshi Ziliao, 2, 57.

480

Chapter 16

of Chaoyang fu (prefecture) in 1904 (Guangxu 30th year) was probably around 4,000, including a large portion made up of the agricultural population. According to Nongshang Table II, Chifeng had 91 businesses, corresponding to a population of 8,000, with an estimated urban population of 10,000. This data, we believe is credible. The same document shows that Jianchang had 156 businesses, corresponding to a population of 14,000. We estimate that the urban population was only 10,000, while the non-agricultural population in 1949 was only 7,000.40 The decrease in the urban population was caused by the decline of commerce during the Japanese occupation. Therefore, we keep our estimate. According to Nongshang Table II, Pingquan had 156 businesses corresponding to a population of 14,000; however, the estimated urban population was only 5,000. According to local records, during the Xianfeng period (1851–1861), there were 168 businesses in the city. Meanwhile, toward the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), “there were three big businesses and more than 300 smaller firms in Pingquan.” In 1920, there were 864 households, among which 376 were engaged commercially, and 5,708 inhabitants, of which 3,431 were engaged in or related to a business.41 These numbers were correct, hence accounting for only 20 individuals per business. According to the same document, there were 185 businesses in Karachin, with a commercial population of 2,000 and a total population of about 4,000. According to Nongshang Table VI, there were 30 and 37 businesses in Luanping and Fengning counties, respectively, corresponding to a population of 3,000. We can estimate that the urban population of the counties was 5,000 and 6,000, respectively. Similarly, we can estimate that the urban population of Harqin Left (Kazuo) county was 6,000, while in 1949, it was 3,000. In fact, at that time, Harqin Left county was basically a market town.42 In 1910, the population of the county headquarters was 1,000. According to Nongshang Table III, Lingyuan county had 200 businesses, corresponding to a population of 18,000. In 1898 (Guangxu 34th year), the

40

Compilation Committee of Liaoning Jianchang Records (Ed.). (1992). Jianchang Xian Zhi (pp. 628–629). Shengyang: Liaoning daxue Publishing House. 41 Anonymous. (1985). Goutong guan neiwai jingji de shangpin jisan di—Bagou: Pingquan xian jie shangye lishi diaocha. Pingquan County Literary and Historical Materials (Vol. 1) (pp. 1–2). 42 Li, T. (Ed.). (2008). Ke Zuo Menggu Shi Lue (p. 195). Shengyang: Liaoning minzu Publishing House.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

481

population of the county headquarters was 15,000, and in 1949, it was 17,000.43 That means the data appears credible, therefore, use the data from Nongshang Table III. Fuxin developed thanks to the discovery, at the end of the Qing Dynasty, of coal mines. However, toward the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the beginning of the Republic of China (1912–1949), there were only a few villages at the center of the urban district. Within the territory of what is now known as Fuxin and Zhangwu counties, there were no urbanized areas.44 According to Nongshang Table III, there were 12 businesses—a number consistent with the aforementioned situations. Linxi, Beipiao, and other counties, which belonged to the mining area, had no urban population in 1910. In fact, Nongshang Table III indicates there were only 2 businesses in Linxi. Jianping county was set up under Karachin Right Banner in 1903. According to Nongshang Table VI”, there were 20 businesses in 1910, suggesting a maximum population of 2,000 in the county headquarters. 2

Henan

The opening of the Beijing-Hankou (Wuhan) railroad in 1906 had a huge impact on the administrative cities of all fu in Henan traversed by the railroad. Up until 1910, a number of Prefectural Capital in Henan had tens of thousands of inhabitants due, to a large extent, to the influence of railroad transportation. In addition to examining the populations of provincial capitals and Prefectural Capital as well as important commercial towns and cities, I also use the Shandong model—Y  =  0.0333X  +  3.0327 (where X is the population of each county in 1953)—in this chapter to calculate urban populations of individual counties. In Nongshang Table II, 31 county- or town-level businesses were recorded, and in Nongshang Table III, 20 county- or town-level businesses were recorded. In The Record of The Three Provinces—Lu (Shandong), Yu (Henan), and Jin (Shanxi), the author Bai Meichu (1925) recorded the populations of 51 cities, which I use to match with the data from local records in my comparative-corrective study.

43 Lingyuan Records Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1995). Lingyuan Xian Zhi (pp. 73–74). Shenyang: Liaoning guji Publishing House. 44 Yang Bolin (Ed.). (1993). Fuxin Shi Zhi (Vol. 1) (p. 418). Beijing: Zhongguo tongji Publishing House.

482

Chapter 16

2.1 Provincial Capital and Prefectural Capital Kaifeng as Provincial Capital 2.1.1 According to The Record of Kaifeng City, the population of Kaifeng city was 120,000 inhabitants in 1898; however, it increased to 160,000 inhabitants in 1907.45 According to Bai Meichu (1925), the population of Kaifeng was 180,000 inhabitants, which is consistent with the above data. 2.1.2 Henan Prefectural Capital According to Bai Meichu (1925), the population of Luoyang city was 54,000 inhabitants, and “Kaifeng is one of the most flourishing cities in its surrounding areas.” In the mid-Qianlong period, the population of Luoyang city was 75,000 inhabitants. The impact of the major disaster of the Guangxu period on the population of Luoyang appears evident. According to the records, “Within the four consecutive years from 1875 to 1878, Luoyang suffered significant droughts. The Yi River and the Luo River dried up, there was no grain harvest, and eight out of ten people starved to death. Such situation was extremely rare over the 300 years.”46 2.1.3 Zhangde Prefectural Capital In 1906, the Beijing-Hankou railroad was opened for traffic and Anyang Prefectural Capital was among the many stations. According to Nongshang Table II, Anyang Chamber of Commerce was established in that year and 322 businesses became members. As the railroad boosted economic development, the number of businesses kept growing up until 1910. During the period of the Republic of China, more than 400 businesses were affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce; in 1937,47 there were 1,700 affiliated businesses. Therefore, in the early years of the Republic of China, the business-related population in Anyang city could be 36,000 inhabitants. In 1949, the population of Anyang city was 53,000 inhabitants—a figure that matches the data above. 2.1.4 Weihui Prefectural Capital Ji county was a station alongside the Beijing-Hankou railroad, and it intersected with the Wei River. Therefore, Ji county can be considered a transportation 45 Compilation Committee of the Records of Kaifeng City. (Ed.). (1996). The Records of Kaifeng City (Vol. 1), (p. 398). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. 46 Compilation Committee of the Records of the old city of Luoyang. (Ed.). (1989). The Records of the Old City of Luoyang (p. 22). Records Zhengzhou: Henan Renmin Press. 47 Compilation Committee of the Records of the Wenfeng district in Anyang city. (Ed.). (2000). The Records of the Wenfeng District in Anyang City (p. 56, p. 220). Records Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

483

hub because of the Wei River that flew through Linqing and Dezhou then to Tianjin. According to Nongshang Table I, there were 134 businesses in Ji county. For its part, The Record of Weihui City recorded there were over 500 businesses in the city proper that also joined the Chamber of Commerce of Ji county when it was established in 1901.48 However, the two sets of data were not entirely consistent due to the different estimation criteria. Later, with the dismantling of the eastern section of the Daoqing Railroad, Wei River was silted, leading to the prosperity of Xinxiang as a new town. Consequently, the commerce in Ji county declined. In 1949, the non-agricultural population of Ji county was only 16,000 inhabitants; it had almost stopped growing over the past 39 years. According to Nongshang Table I, the county’s urban population was 12,000 in 1910. Runing Prefectural Capital 2.1.5 According to Bai Meichu (1925), the population of Runan county seat was 30,000 inhabitants. However, the estimated population was only 15,000 inhabitants. Runing Prefectural Capital was not a commercial center, and its population size was thus supposed to be related to its total population. Therefore, I adopt the estimated data. After the opening of the railroad for traffic, the status of Xinyang rose, and it became as significant as a capital city. The urban population of Xinyang was estimated to be 19,000 inhabitants, but its actual population could be as high as 30,000 inhabitants. 2.1.6 Xuzhou City According to Nongshang Table I, there were 102 businesses in the city that engaged 9,000 inhabitants. I used the Shangdong model and calculated the urban population of Xuchang to be 18,000 inhabitants. However, according to Bai Menchu (1925), there were 30,000 inhabitants. It was only four years since the opening of the Ping-Han (Beijing-Hankou) railroad, so it is reasonable that the actual population of Xuchang is less than the estimated population. Therefore, I adopt the data from Nongshang Table. 2.1.7 Guide Prefectural Capital According to Nongshang Table II, there were only 84 businesses in Shangqiu that engaged 8,000 inhabitants. However, Bai Meichu (1925) claimed that the population of Shangqiu was 30,000 inhabitants. According to my estimation, the urban population of Shangqiu (including Shangqiu city and Gushu county) 48 Records Compilation Committee of the Records of Weihui City. (Ed.). (1993). The Records of Weihui City (p. 401). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company.

484

Chapter 16

was 32,000 inhabitants in 1910. In the Kaifeng-Xuzhou section of the Longhai railway that was opened for traffic in 1916, Zhuji town was station, and it was located seven kilometers northward from Shangqiu City. Given the growth in Zhuji population, the center of the city moved northward.49 However, according to Nongshang Table II, in the pre-railway era, Shangqiu had no advantages in terms of transportation. 2.1.8 Ruzhou City The urban population of Linru county was only 12,000 inhabitants. Bai Meichu (1925) maintains the population was 50,000 inhabitants it was highly developed commercially. It was also the Yuncheng lake salt distribution center, and its major businesses were cloth stores and grain stores. According to The Record of Ruzhou City, commercial activities reached their peak in Ruzhou during the Guangxu period, but declined between 1920 and 1924 due to looting by soldiers and bandits.50 Bai’s record was an account of the prosperous time of Ruzhou in 1910. Nanyang Prefectural Capital 2.1.9 In 1905, there were 8,000 households totaling about 40,000 inhabitants in the nine bao of Nanyang county seat.51 2.1.10 Chenzhou Prefectural Capital The population of Huaiyang county seat was estimated to be 10,000 inhabitants—a significantly lower figure compared with Bai Menchu’s (1925) 40,000 inhabitants. Due to the rise of Zhoukou, Huaiyang city was no longer a commercial center and could not have attracted that many people. According to The Record of Huaiyang County compiled in 1933, there were 2,651 households, corresponding to 11,532 inhabitants in the county town.52 This data is consistent with my estimate. According to Nongshang Table III, there were only 23 businesses that engaged 2,000 inhabitants—a figure that appears underestimated.

49

Compilation Committee of the Records of Shangqiu City. (1994). The Records of Shangqiu City (p. 261). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. 50 Compilation Committee of the Records of Ruzhou City (Ed.). (1994). The Records of Ruzhou City (p. 461). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. 51 Pan, S. (1968). An Account of the Maps on The Population, Land, Products, and Husbandry of Nanyang County in Nanyang Fu (p. 2). Taiwan: Chengwen Press. 52 The Committee of Records of Huaiyang county (Ed.). (2013). The Records of Huaiyang County, (compiled in the Republic of China) (p. 12).

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

485

2.1.11 Huaiqing Prefectural Capital The population of Qinyang county was estimated to be 15,000 inhabitants. Accordingly, there were probably 170 businesses in Qinyang. Bai Meichu (1925) maintained, “The commerce [of Qinyang] used to flourish, but it has declined.” It should be noted that this description is not entirely accurate, given that in 1936, there were more than 1,000 large and small businesses in the city involving 5,000 business-related inhabitants.53 2.1.12 Guangzhou City According to Nongshang Table VI, the Chamber of Commerce was established in 1912, and 93 businesses, which engaged 8,000 inhabitants, joined the chamber. The estimated population of Hengchuan county was 11,000 inhabitants, which seems quite close to the above figure. Bai Meichu (1925) explained that Huangchuan River separated the two cities in the north and south of Huangchuan county, and that the combined population of the two cities was 80,000 inhabitants. The figure appears to be an exaggeration, given that according to The Record of Huangchuan County, there were more than 3,000 private businesses in the whole city at the end of the Qing Dynasty, and the county was also known as the “Little Suzhou of South Henan.”54 In 1950, the non-agricultural population of the county was 23,000 inhabitants. Therefore, we set its population in 1910 at 40,000 inhabitants. 2.1.13 Shanzhou City According to the household investigation and registration, after the great disaster in 1876, there were only 3,000 inhabitants in the capital city of Shanzhou Prefecture. The population was replenished after the disaster. In this section, the urban population of Shanzhou city is estimated to be 7,000 inhabitants— a figure that aligns with our estimate. 2.2 Trading Ports, Major Cities and Towns In addition to describing the opening and development of the commercial ports of Zheng County, Baimei Chu (1925) also listed 12 other major cities and towns, which are discussed as follows.

53 Ma, X. (Ed.). (1993). The Records of Qinyang City (p. 344). Bejing: Hongqi Press. 54 Compilation Committee of the Records of Hengchuan county. (1992). The Records of Hengchuan County (p. 267, p. 600). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company.

486

Chapter 16

2.2.1 Zheng County According to Bai Meichu (1925), the household investigation by the Police Department in 1916 showed that the number of households in Zheng county was 500, corresponding to a population of 3,300 inhabitants. In 1895, Zheng county became a trading port with an area measuring approximately 20 li to the north, 20 li to the south, 5 li to the east, and 5 li to the west. The ruling city of Zheng county was not included in this area, and no population record existed. According to The Records of Zhengzhou City, the population of Zheng county in 1913 was 154,000 inhabitants; in 1916, it was 205,000 inhabitants. The 51,000 inhabitants that added to the population within the three years may have been business employees or workers. In 1928, the urban population of Zhengzhou city was 81,000 inhabitants,55 and its average annual population growth rate from 1916 to 1928 was 39.3‰. Based on this rate through regression analysis, we determine the population of Zhengzhou was 40,000 inhabitants, including business employees and workers. 2.2.2 Qinghua Town According to Nongshang Table II, there were 100 businesses in Qinghua town of Qin county, and they engaged 90,000 inhabitants. Qinghua town included Bo’ai county and Jiaozuo city in 1953, and their population was estimated to be 6,000 and 3,000 inhabitants, respectively. Therefore, the two sets of data are well matched. 2.2.3 Zhoukou Town Even though Zhoukou town was separated from Huaiyang, Xihua, Shangshui counties, it was under their common jurisdiction. According to Bai Meichu (1925), the southern part of Zhoukou town was the commercial center where merchants gathered thanks to the convenient water transportation of the Sha River. According to The Records of Zhoukou City, despite the declining business after the opening of the Beijing-Hankou railroad, there were still about 80 grain dealers in Zhoujiakou (Zhoukou) in the final years of the Qing Dynasty.56 In A Grand View of Zhoukou, the 80-odd grain dealers and the 180-odd horse-mule dealers were added, leading to the conclusion there were several thousand handicraft businesses that hired 200,000 inhabitants.57 However, according to 55

Compilation Committee of the Records of Zhengzhou City. (Ed.). (1993). The Records of Zhengzhou City (pp. 343–344). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. 56 Compilation Committee of the Records of Zhoukou City (Ed.). (1994). The Records of Zhoukou City (p. 238) Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. 57 Yang, Y. (1993). A Grand View of Zhoukou (p. 7). Zhengzhou: Zhongyuan Farmers’ Press.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

487

Nongshang Table II, there were 538 businesses registered with the Chamber of Commerce in Zhoukou town when it was established in 1905. Furthermore, the businesses only hired 48,000 employees. As a land and water transit wharf, Zhoukou town probably had a large transient population; however, its total population is estimated to be no more than 100,000 inhabitants. The population of Zhoukou city in 1953 was 86,000 inhabitants, including the population of the suburbs and the population growth after 1949. These figures can justify the prior estimation. After the commercial decline, the transient population of Zhoukou disappeared faster than the population of permanent residents. 2.2.4 Luohe Town According to Nongshang Table I, there were 98 businesses in Luohe town that engaged a population of 9,000 inhabitants. The Records of Luohe City maintains Luohe station developed into a town with the opening of the Beijing-Hankou railroad in 1906. The livestock and grain collection centers in the area, such as North Wudu and Zhoukou gradually moved to Luohe. In 1925, the urban population of Luohe was 40,000 inhabitants. Bai Meichu (1925) claims that with the opening of the Beijing-Hankou railroad, Yancheng county of Luohe became the center where products were collected and distributed. Therefore, it had many busy downtown streets. Based on its urban population of 40,000 inhabitants, I set the urban population of Yancheng county at 9,000 inhabitants. 2.2.5 Sheqi Town According to An Account of the Maps on The Population, Land, Products, and Husbantry of Nanyang County in Nanyang Fu compiled in 1905, there were three bao in Shedian town that comprised of 4 big villages and 38 small villages with 4,883 households totaling about 24,000 inhabitants. Shedian town also included villages and had 133 stores in the market town of Shedian. According to Nongshang Table II, there were 147 businesses that engaged 13,000 inhabitants. Unlike its commerce during the Tongzhi and Guangxu periods, the commerce of Sheqi town declined considerably. 2.2.6 Zhumadian Town According to The Records of Zhumadian City, Zhumadian town of Queshan county was an important station of the Beijing-Kankou railroad. In 1911, there were more than 70 wholesale grain stores, 50 grain forwarders, 6 oil dealers, 9 floor stores; there were other 140 grain businesses.58 In total, the businesses 58 Compilation Committee of the Records of Zhumandian City of Henan Province. (Ed.). (1989). The Records of Zhumadian City (p. 313). Zhenghzou: Henan People’s Press.

488

Chapter 16

in the whole town may have reached 250 and involved a business-related population of about 23,000 inhabitants. 2.2.7 Jingziguan Town Jingziguan town was an important wharf on the waterway of the Dan River. According to Vol. 8 of The Local Records of Xichuan Zhili Ting compiled in 1905, “Jingziguan was the largest trade center in the entire territory, while Zhili Chengzhong was the second largest.” According to The Record f Xichuan County, as many as 300 to 400 ships and boats berthed at the Jingziguan wharf. Along the bank were 600-meter-long streets full of nightclubs and restaurants; there were also the three major businesses, the eight major confraternities, the twelve major carter’s inns, and the twenty-four major businesses. Jingziguan town was the major for commodity collection and distribution center on the borders of Henan, Hubei, and Shaanxi provinces.59 According to The Record of Xichuan County, there were over 60 large businesses in Xichuan county during the late Qing and early Ming dynasties, such as Deshengzheng and Fuxingmei. According to Nongshang Table II, that there were 103 businesses that engaged the county population of 0.9 million inhabitants. It is estimated that the urban population of Xichuan county was 14,000 inhabitants, and the population of Zijingguan town (excluding the population of the county seat) was 5,000 inhabitants. The estimates correspond with the number of major businesses in terms of the proportion between population size and businesses. 2.2.8 Yuantan Town In 1911, the Chamber of Commerce of Tanghe county was set up in Yuantan town—an indication the commerce of Yuantan town was more prosperous than that of the county town. According to The Record of Tanghe County, in the early years of the Republic of China, there were more than 200 large and small businesses in the county,60 suggesting that Yuantan county had even many more businesses. If half of the businesses in Yuantan county were large businesses, there could be about 250 businesses in which 23,000 inhabitants were engaged. This data seems to concur with our estimated figure.

59 Compilation Committee of the Records of Xichuan county. (Ed.). (1990). The Record of Xichuan County (p. 66, p. 269). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Press. 60 Compilation Committee of the Records of Tanghe county (Ed.). (1993). The Records of Tanghe County. (p. 222, p. 421). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

489

2.2.9 Daokou Town According to Nongshang Table II, 80 businesses in Xun county, involving 7,000 inhabitants, were established in Daokou town. Daokou town was also the starting point of the eastern end of Daoqing railroad. However, the railroad did not operate for a long time because the economic development of Daokou was limited in scale, and its population was too insignificant. Bai Meichu (1925) also alludes to Huixing town in Shan county and Wangfan town in Luoning county. In The Record of Shan County, Yuandian town and Guanyintang town were mentioned, but Huixing town was not. According to The Record of Luoning County, the transportation in Wangan town was not convenient, so the flow of goods was very insignificant there; it was not until 1938 when the Luotong Highway was opened that more businesses gathered in the town.61 2.3 Counties 2.3.1 Nanyang Fu According to Nongshang Table I and Nongshang Table II, there were 156 businesses in Wuyang, 103 in Xichuan, and 95 in Xinye that hired 14,000, 9,000, and 9,000 inhabitants, respectively. However, my estimates for Wuyang, Xichuan, and Xinye are 17,000, 14,000, and 13,000, respectively. I believe the difference to be reasonable because, according to Nongshang Table I, there were 190 businesses in Deng county that hired a total of 17,000 inhabitants. However, I estimate the population was 27,000 inhabitants, given that Deng county was a largely agricultural county. For large agricultural or commercial counties, estimated figures are generally inaccurate. Therefore, I tend to adopt the data from Nongshang tables. According to Nongshang Table II, there were 315 businesses in Tongbai county, corresponding to a population of 28,000 people. However, this data contrasts significantly with my 5,000 estimate. In 1950, the non-agricultural population of the county was only 9,000.62 According to Nongshang Table I, 167 businesses in Shahedian of Miyang county corresponded to an urban population of 15,000. My estimate of its urban population was 16,000 inhabitants, which matches with the above figure. In 1949, the non-agricultural population of Miyang county was only 7,000

61 Compilation Committee of the Records of Luoning county. (Ed.). (1991). The Records of Luoning County (pp. 231–232). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. 62 Compilation Committee of the Records of Tongbai county (Ed.). (1995). The Records of Tongbai County (p. 140, p. 501). Zhenghzou: Zhonghzou Guji Press.

490

Chapter 16

inhabitants,63 a result of the commercial decline of the county during the Republic of China. According to Nongshang Table III, there were only 8 businesses in Zhenping county that hired a population fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. In fact, during the late Qing Dynasty, the silk and jade in Zhenping were sold overseas, and the silk businesses were more than 1,000 in the whole county. In addition, there were 21 towns and 334 wool fabric dealers in the city seat. However, the account in Nongshang Table III may be inaccurate. Based on the non-agricultural population of 28,000 inhabitants in 1949 and 15,000 in 1964, I calculated that the population of Zhenping county was 17,000 inhabitants.64 According to Nongshang Table III, there were 10 businesses in Nanshao county that hired fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. My estimate of Nanshao county urban population is 10,000 inhabitants—significantly different from the data above. The Record of Nanzhao County claims businesses mainly traded mountain products that had mushroomed in the county seat and its towns that had become the gathering point for businesses and a growing number of vendors during Qing Dynasty. During the Guangxu period, there were over 10 business fields, including pharmacy, in the county seat and Liqingdian town. In the early years of the Republic of China, commerce flourished over a while due to the rapid development of sericulture and convenient transportation. However, the non-agricultural population of the county was only 6,000 inhabitants in 1950,65 probably due to the destruction caused by a series of wars in the Republic of China. Therefore, I adopt the estimated data. It is claimed in Nongshang Table III that there were only four businesses in Neixiang county. However, The Record of Neixiang County maintains there were 22 major businesses in Mashankou town in 1902, and that businessmen gathered at each chamber meeting. Consequently, the county town and Shigang ranked second in the number of businesses. Businessmen from Shaanxi, Shanxi, Hebei, and Sichuan provinces and from Zhengzhou and Luoyang in Henan Province opened inns, stores, and shops in big market towns.66 The estimated urban population of Neixiang county was 13,000 inhabitants, while

63 Compilation Committee of the Records of Miyang county (Ed.). (1994). The Records of Miyang County (p. 121). Zhengzhou: Zhognhzou Guji Press. 64 Compilation Committee of the Records of Zhenping county (Ed.). (1998). The Records of Zhenping County (p. 157, p. 376, p. 543). Beijing: Fangzhi Press. 65 Compilation Committee of the Records of Nanzhao county (Ed.). (1995). The Records of Nanzhao County (p. 161, p. 673). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. 66 Compilation Committee of the Records of Neixiang county. (Ed.). (1994). The Records of Neixiang County (p. 121). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

491

the non-agricultural population of the county was also 13,000 inhabitants in 1950. Therefore, I adopt the estimated data. The case of Deng county reminds us to pay special attention to the problem of the inaccurate estimation of the urban population of large agricultural counties. By large counties, we mean those with over 450,000 inhabitants in 1953. For example, the urban population of Fangcheng county was estimated at 21,000 inhabitants. Excluding the 626 natural villages separated from Nanyang county in 1951 and merged with Fangcheng, the estimated urban population of Fangcheng county remained 16,000 inhabitants. In fact, the non-agricultural population of the county was only 9,000 inhabitants in 1949.67 In Ye county, the urban population was estimated at 15,000 inhabitants, but its non-agricultural population in 1949 was only 11,000 inhabitants68—similar to the situation of Fangcheng. Therefore, based on the non-agricultural population in 1949, I consider 70% of the estimated population in 1910 as the actual urban population. 2.3.2 Runing Fu According to Nongshang Table III, there were 63 businesses in Luoshan county and Hekousai town (the area near the estuary closure) of the county, corresponding to a population of 6,000 inhabitants. My estimate of the urban population is 12,000 inhabitants. According to The Record of Luoshan County, in the early years of the Republic of China, the number of local businesses increased to the point there were altogether 132 businesses of all kinds69 in the entire county, corresponding to a population of 12,000 inhabitants. According to the same source, South Lidian town was larger than Kekousai town in this period, while Zhoudangfan town was relatively smaller. Therefore, I adopt the data and information from The Record of Luoshan County. According to Nongshang Table III, there were only 16 businesses in Zhengyang county that corresponding 1,000 inhabitants. My estimate of its urban population is as many as 12,000 inhabitants—significantly different from the figure above. It is mentioned in The Record of Zhengyang County that the population of the county town was 11,000 inhabitants in 1964. Meanwhile, in the early years of the Republic of China, there were 26 lines of business and 200 businesses that brought together vendors and businesses in the county 67

Compilation Committee of the Records of Fangcheng county (Ed.). (1992). The Records of Fangcheng County (p. 77, p. 135). Zhengzhou: Zhognzhou Guji Press. 68 Compilation Committee of the Records of Ye county (Ed.). (1995). The Records of Ye County (p. 137). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. 69 Compilation Committee of the Records of Luoshan county. (Ed.). (1987). The Records of Luoshan County (p. 367, pp. 391–392). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Press.

492

Chapter 16

town that covered 2.6 square kilometers in 1949.70 The number of businesses recorded in Nongshang Table III was inaccurate; therefore, I adopt the estimated data. According to Nongshang Table II, there were 80 businesses in Shangcai county that hired 7,000 inhabitants. My estimate of the urban population is 21,000 inhabitants, a significant gap from the figure above. It was claimed in The Record of Shangcai County that many businessmen from other places came to Shangcai after the opening of the Beijing-Hankou railroad during the last years of the Qing Dynasty. Up until the early years of the Republic of China, 50 businesses moved from Huaiqing fu to Shangcai.71 If we add the businesses from places other than Huaiqing fu, then the record of 80 businesses in Nongshang Table III is trustworthy. Shangcai was a major agricultural county and my estimate of its urban population is relatively larger. 2.3.3 Kaifeng Fu According to the records of Nongshang Table I and Nongshang Table II, there were 182 and 75 businesses, respectively, in Yanling county that hired 16,000 and 7,000 inhabitants. My estimate of its urban population is 11,000 inhabitants. After the Beijing-Hankou railroad opened, Yanling was no longer a major pass between the borderline of the north and the south, so its commerce declined rapidly.72 That explains why I have adopted the estimated data here. According to Nongshang Table II, there were 37 businesses in Xingyang county which engaged a population of population of 3,000 inhabitants. My estimate of the urban population is 6,000 inhabitants. Between 1948 and 1949, Xingyang, Sishui, and Guangwu counties were merged into Xingyang county, which accounted for 43% of the total population of the three counties in 1936. The population of Xingyang county in 1949 was 14,000 inhabitants.73 Therefore, we calculate the population of Xingyang county in 1936 to be 6,000 inhabitants, a figure that concurs with our estimated data. According to Nongshang Table II, there were 272 businesses in Yu county which engaged a population of 24,000 inhabitants. My estimate of the urban population is 20,000 inhabitants. The same source also maintains that there 70 Zhang Zhenya (Ed.). (1996). The Records of Zhengyang County (p. 134, p. 374). Beijing: Fangzhi Press. 71 Compilation Committee of the Records of Shangcai county. (Ed.). (1995). The Records of Shangcai County (pp. 398–395). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. 72 Compilation Committee of the Records of Yanling county. (Ed.). (1989). The Records of Yanling County (pp. 281–282). Tianjin: Nankai University Press. 73 Compilation Committee of the Records of Xingyang City. (Ed.). (1996). The Records of Xingyang City (p. 115). Beijing: Xinhua Press.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

493

were 158 businesses in Zheng county that engaged a population of 14,000 inhabitants. My estimate of the urban population is only 9,000 inhabitants. This is because during the last years of the Qing Dynasty, the commerce in Yu county and Zheng county did not realize any significant achievements. In 1949, the urban population of the new Zheng county was only 9,000 inhabitants.74 Therefore, I adopt the estimated data. According to Nongshang Table I, there were 33 businesses in Mu county which engaged a 3,000 inhabitants. Meanwhile, my estimate of the urban population is 9,000 inhabitants. In 1949, the urban population of Mu county was less than 3,000 inhabitants because of the flooding at Huayuankou. After the Japanese occupation, nine out of ten inhabitants fled, and some of them returned after the war. The population did not regain its original figures until the 1970s.75 Therefore, in this section, I adopt the estimated data. We do not attempt, at this juncture, to determine whether the business-related population of Chenliu, Xutong, and Qi counties can be matched with my estimated data county by county. 2.3.4 Chenzhou According to Nongshang Table II. (Agricultural and Commercial), there were 38 businesses in Shenqiu, corresponding to a population of only 3,000. In contrast, the urban population was 18,000. Meanwhile, in 1950, the county had a population of 12,000.76Outside the county capital, there was Huaidian county, suggesting merchant names contained in the “Agricultural and Commercial Table 2” were trade names of one of the two towns. It is assumed the urban population was 10,000 in 1910. However, Bai Meichu (1925) maintains there were about 20,000 residents in the urban and suburban Taikang county, and that, in recent decades, the population has increased, meaning it has more than doubled from the previous few years. This increase appears to correspond to the measured population of the county capital of 19,000. Since Zhoukou town was made up of and administered by Huaiyang, Xihua, and Shangshui counties, it is necessary to calculate the urban population of 74 Compilation Committee of the Records of Xinzheng county. (Ed.). (1992) The Records of Xinzheng Count (p. 91, p. 319). Xi’an: Shaanxi People’s Press. The town population of Xinzheng county was mistakenly recorded as 905 inhabitants; it was recorded that there were 95 businesses in the county seat in 1984 which involved 800 inhabitants as employees. 75 Compilation Committee of the Records of Zhongmu county (Ed.). (1999). The Record of Zhongmu County (pp. 419–420). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. 76 Compilation Committee of Shenqiu Records. (1987). Shenqiu Xianzhi (p. 281, p. 556). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House.

494

Chapter 16

the three counties. In 1949,77 the urban population of Shangshui County was 21,000, while the non-agricultural population was 15,000—thereby aligning with our estimated population figures. In 1910, a considerable part of the urban population belonged to Zhoukou; therefore, half of the urban population was regarded as the urban population of the three counties excluding Zhoukou town. According to Nongshang Table III, Fugou had 44 businesses in 1912, corresponding to a population of 4,000 and the total population was measured at 12,000. According to the Fugou, by the end of the Qing Dynasty, private businesses in Fugou county mainly engaged in grain, cotton, linen, silk, cloth, etc. In the early years of the Republic of China, with the establishment of Shanxi-Shaanxi Guild, merchants from Shanxi and other places came and opened up business in up to 42 industries.78 From the foregoing, I can infer that the number of businesses in 1912 could have been the number of industries represented in Fugou county. My estimate is based on the understanding that in 1938, the Yellow River breached levees and flooded farmlands, villages, and entire cities. As a result, many people died or emigrated, and commerce declined. Here the measured number was taken as the total population of Fugou. According to Nongshang Table III, there were only 10 businesses in Xiangcheng, corresponding to a population of 1,000. However, the total population was measured to be as high as 16,000. According to Xiangcheng, Xiangcheng engaged mainly in agriculture, with its transportation inconvenient and its business sluggish. Before the War against the Japanese, businesses were mostly grocery stores, department stores, stationery, winemaking factories, catering, pastries, etc., mainly located in Moling town and Huadian town. In 1950, the non-agricultural population was only 1,000 inhabitants.79 Therefore, we adopt the data of Nongshang Table III. Therefore, Xiangcheng is also considered a typical agricultural county. 2.3.5 Henan Province According to Nongshang Table II there were 356 businesses in Songxian county, corresponding to a population of 32,000. However, there was an estimated population of only 9,000. In 1906 (Guangxu 32nd year), the county was 77

Compilation Committee of the Records of Shangshui County. (1990). Shangshui Xianzhi (Shangshui Xianzhi) (p. 409). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. 78 Compilation Committee of the Records of Fugou County. (1986). Fugou Xianzhi (p. 298). Henan Province, Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. 79 Compilation Committee of Xiangcheng Records. (1999). Xiangcheng Xianzhi (p. 123, p. 347). Tianjin: Nankai University Press.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

495

divided into 14 li, with 42 subordinate bao. Each urban li had 4 bao under its jurisdiction, accounting for 2.4% of the total in the county. Songxian county had a population of 228,000 people in 1906.80 Based on the ratio of 2.4%, the population of the county capital was estimated at 5,000. If we add the population of towns outside the county headquarters, the whole county’s population would be 9,000—a reasonable estimate. According to Nongshang Table I, there were 205 and 146 businesses in Mengjin and Xin’an counties, respectively, corresponding to 18,000 and 13,000 inhabitants, respectively. However, the estimated population was 5,000 and 8,000, respectively—figures that do not appear reasonable. Mengjin had an urban non-agricultural population of 7,000 people in 1953, while Xin’an had a non-agricultural population of 10,000 in 1949.81 In comparison, our estimated population figures are more reliable According to Nongshang Table II, there were 30 businesses in Yichuan county, corresponding to a population of only 3,000. In contrast, the measured population records indicate the total population was 11,000 inhabitants—a significant statistical discrepancy. In 1949, the urban population of Yichuan county was about 2,000, and in 1953, the county’ had a non-agricultural population of 6,000.82 Therefore, we adopt the data of Nongshang Table II in our discussion. 2.3.6 Huaiqing Prefecture According to Nongshang Table II, there were 116 and 113 businesses in Xiuwu and Mengxian County, respectively, with a corresponding population of 10,000 for each county. The total population of the two counties was measured at 5,000 and 6,000 respectively. In 1953, Xiuwu County had an urban population of only 3,000,83 Indicating that the calculated data is relatively correct. In 1949, Mengxian County had a non-agricultural population of 12,000.84 Indicating that the data in Nongshang Table II” is correct. According to Nongshang Table III, there were 98 businesses in Yanshi county, corresponding to a population of 9,000. In contrast, the official population figure was 10,000 inhabitants— a figure that corresponds with our estimate. In Wenxian county, Wuzhi county, 80 Compilation Committee of Songxian Records of Henan Province. (1990). Songxian Zhi (p. 75, p. 385, p. 411, p. 819). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. 81 Compilation Committee of Local History of Mengjin County, Henan Province. (1991). Mengjin Xianzhi (p. 119). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House; Lin, Z. (1989). Xin’an Xianzhi (p. 134). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. 82 Li, Y. (1991). Yichuan Xianzhi (p. 77, p. 733). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. 83 Xue, C. (1986). Xiuwu Xianzhi (p. 645). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. 84 Mengxian County Zhi Compilation Committee. (1991). Mengxian Zhi (p. 516). Xi’an: Shaanxi People’s Publishing House.

496

Chapter 16

and Yuanyang county, the estimated population was basically the same as the urban population of the county headquarters accounted for in the local records. Therefore, no further details are necessary at this juncture. 2.3.7 Weihui Prefecture According to Nongshang Table II, there were 127 businesses in Xinxiang county, corresponding to a population of 11,000—a figure significantly different from the official 7,000 inhabitants. Xinxiang county was an emerging commercial city, meaning the urban population ought to be larger than the measured population. According to Nongshang Table I, there were 134 businesses in Huaxian County, corresponding to a population of 12,000. According to Volumes 5 and 6 of Huaxian Zhi of the Republic of China, the county headquarters had a population of 10,000 during the Xianfeng period and a population of about 9,000 in 1928. Bai Meichu (1925) recorded a population of 8,000 in Huaxian county headquarters—data that aligns with our estimate. However, the urban population of Huaxian county was measured at 22,000 inhabitants because the county was a large agricultural county. Therefore, it is necessary to pay special attention to large agricultural counties. The corresponding number of businesses in Huojia, Huixian, Junxian, Qixian, Fengqiu, and other counties recorded in Nongshang Table I and Nongshang Table II basically match the estimated population. So, no further description is provided of these counties. 2.3.8 Guide Fu Yongcheng County was a populous county with a population of 769,000 in 1953. According to Nongshang Table I, there were 117 busineses in the prefecture, corresponding to an estimated 11,000 inhabitants. However, the measured total population was as high as 26,000 inhabitants. In 1950, the county had a non-agricultural population of 18,000. There are also records about the sluggish local business environment during the period of Republic of China.85 Comparatively, the data in Nongshang Table I appears more reasonable. Luyi county had a larger population. In 1951, Dancheng was separated from Luyi county, Shandong. In 1953, the population of the two counties totaled 1.143 million inhabitants; in 1910, the urban population totaled 38,000 inhabitants. In fact, Dancheng had a non-agricultural population (on commercial

85

Compilation Committee of Yongcheng Records. (1991). Yongcheng Xianzhi (p. 45, p. 540). Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

497

grain provision) of only 5,000 in 1951.86 There was no relevant record for Luyi county; therefore, we assume that the two counties had a population of 5,000 each in 1910. Suixian had a slightly smaller population. According to Nongshang Table III, there were 13 businesses in Suixian county, corresponding to a population of only 1,000 inhabitants. However, the total measured population was 11,000. According to the Suixian Zhi, businesses began to appear in markets only after 1840. From the founding of the Republic of China, commerce began to develop with the arrival of merchants from Shanxi and Shaanxi to Suixian. From 1921 to 1927, there were no more than 70 businesses; therefore, we adopt the data from Nongshang Table III. Therefore, the estimated population of Xiayi county, Gushu county and other populous counties in Guide Prefecture should be revised. Ideally, it should correspond to half the estimated population of Xiayi, Gushu, and other counties and towns in 1910. 2.3.9 Xuzhou According to Nongshang Table II, there were 68 businesses in Linying county, corresponding to a population of 6,000. In 1953, Linying had a non-agricultural population of 7,00087—a figure that matches our estimate. However, the total population of 11,000 seemed out of proportion. According to Nongshang Table I, there were 140 businesses in Changge County, corresponding to a population of 13,000. In contrast, the measured population was 9,000 inhabitants. In 1949, Changge county had a non-agricultural population of 19,000.88 Based on the records on Nongshang Table III, there were 160 businesses in Xiangcheng county, corresponding to a population of 14,000 inhabitants. The population was measured at 13,000—data that is consistent with our estimate. Therefore, the data of the three counties were adopted from Nongshang Tables. 2.3.10 Zhangde Prefecture According to Nongshang Table I and Nongshang Table II, there were 117 and 57 businesses in Tangyin and Shexian counties, respectively, corresponding to a population of 11,000 and 5,000, respectively. In contrast, the measured urban 86 Compilation Committee of Dancheng Records. (1992). Dancheng Xianzhi (p. 138). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. 87 Compilation Committee of Linying Records. (1996). Linying Xianzhi (p. 615). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. 88 Compilation Committee of Changge Records. (1992). Changge Xianzhi (p. 135). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Sanlian Bookstore.

498

Chapter 16

population was 9,000 and 6,000, respectively,—figures that align with the recorded population figures. Based on the data on Nongshang Table III, there were only 2 businesses in Linxian county. The official population was 16,000; however, in 1949, the non-agricultural population was only 8,000. Other information suggested that there were 468 businesses in the county in 1925, including 116 businesses in the county headquarters.89 It seems that Nongshang Table III was not reliable, given the estimated figure is significantly high. As a result, we adopted half of the figure (i.e., 8,000) in this book. The situation in Neihuang county is unlike any other. The urban population of Neihuang county was measured at 11,000 in 1910. However, there was a non-agricultural population of fewer than 2,000 in 1949. It turned out that Bokou town and Huilong town were separated from Neihuang in 1949,90 resulting in a significant decrease in the urban population. As a result, we adopt the official population data here. 2.3.11 Ruzhou According to Nongshang Table II, there were 30 businesses in Ruyang, corresponding to a population of 3,000 inhabitants. In contrast, the total population was measured at 6,000, including a total urban population of 2,000 in 195391 based on the data on Nongshang Table II. In contrast, Nongshang Table III records indicate there were 14 businesses in Lushan county, corresponding to a population of only 1,000 inhabitants. While the total population was measured at 13,000, the non-agricultural population in 1948 was 18,000.92 Therefore, we maintain the official population figures. In 1952, Baofeng county had a non-agricultural population of 2,000 which increased to 4,000 in 1957.93 While the urban population was measured at 10,000, it was assumed to be 2,000 in 1910.

89

Compilation Committee of Linxian Records. (1989). Linxian Zhi (p. 361, p. 567). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. 90 Shi, Q. (1993). Neihuang Xianzhi (p. 67, p. 97). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. 91 Compilation Committee of Ruyang Records. (1995). Ruyang Xianzhi (p. 96). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Sanlian Bookstore. 92 Compilation Committee of Lushan Records. (1994). Lushan Xianzhi (p. 160). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. 93 Compilation Committee of Baofeng Records. (1996). Baofeng Xianzhi (p. 171). Beijing: Fangzhi Publishing House.

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

499

2.3.12 Shaanzhou According to Nongshang Table I, there were 121 businesses in Lingbao county, corresponding to a population of 11,000. The urban population was measured at 8,000, while the non-agricultural population was 15,000 in 1952.94 Therefore, we adopted the data from Nongshang Table I. 2.3.13 Guangzhou According to Nongshang Table III, there were 110 businesses in Xixian county, corresponding to a population of 10,000. However, official population records indicate there were 15,000 inhabitants in Guangzhou. In 1936, the county headquarters had a population of 14,000 and in 1949, it had a non-agricultural population of 12,000.95 In comparison, the corresponding figures outlined in Nongshang Table III appear unreliable. According to Nongshang Table III, there were 230 businesses in Shangcheng county, corresponding to a population of 21,000. In contrast, the total population was measured at only 13,000. In 1954, Chengguan Town had a population of 15,000.96 Therefore, even though the measured population appears reasonable, it is not. In 1950, the county had a total population of 392,000, and in 1941, it had a population of about 370,000. In the same year, there were 151 bao in the county, including 12 bao in the county headquarters, accounting for 7.9% of the county total. In 1932, approximately 60,000 inhabitants in Shangcheng county were allocated to present-day Jinzhai county, accounting for about one-sixth of the county’s population at that time. In other words, according to the jurisdiction in 1910, the urban bao accounted for only 6.8% of the total number of bao in the county, while the county headquarters had an actual population of actually 25,000—data that aligns with Nongshang Table III. 3

Urban Population in 1910

Due to a lack of space, this book does not provide a detailed description of other provinces and regions other than Shandong, Zhili, and Henan provinces. As far as data is concerned, in the southern provinces where the Shandong model cannot be employed, verification is accomplished based on the 94 Editorial Committee of Lingbao Records. (1992). Lingbao Xianzhi (p. 866). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. 95 Compilation Committee of Xixian Zhi. (1989). Xixian Zhi (p. 361, p. 567). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. 96 Compilation Committee of Shangcheng Records. (1991). Shangcheng Xianzhi (p. 54, pp. 118–121). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House.

500

Chapter 16

above-mentioned records. In the south and southwest provinces of China, where records are difficult to obtain, newly revised local records from the 1990s to 2000s are mainly used to verify the population of each county and town. It is worthy of note that the less the research data, the more difficult it is to verify the figures. The research results of the urban population of various provinces in 1910 are hereby summarized as follows. 3.1 Urban Population Model by Region We divided the five northern provinces into two regions, then transformed the population analysis of counties in 1953 and the urban population of counties in 1910 to the population analysis of prefectures in 1910 and the urban population of prefectures in 1910. The results are more reliable and convincing. This shows that after excluding the differences among counties, the prefecture analysis can better express the level of regional urbanization. Diagram 14 excludes Shuntian Prefecture where the capital and provincial capitals are located, Jinan Prefecture, Kaifeng Prefecture, Tianjin Prefecture, and Xuanhua Prefecture. Cities in Xuanhua fu shared the characteristics of weisuo cities, because they had a large population not only in prefectural capital cities but also in county headquarters. Weisuo cities or towns were not all commercial. Also, Diagram 14 excluded highly commercialized Dengzhou Prefecture and Laizhou fu in Shandong and Quide fu in Henan where there was a cluster of large agricultural counties.

Ji Yu Lu 6000 5000 4000

y = 20.371x - 63.095 R² = 0.8278

3000 2000 1000 0

0

Diagram 14

50

100

150

200

250

The relationship between the urban population and total population of prefectures in Shandong, Zhili, and Henan provinces in 1910

300

501

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

Jin Shan 1800 1600

y = 11.018x + 170.03 R² = 0.8097

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

0

Diagram 15

20

40

60

80

100

120

Relationship between the urban population and total population of Shanxi and Shaanxi provinces by prefecture in 1910

Similarly, in Shanxi and Shaanxi, Diagram 15 excluded the provincial capitals Taiyuan and Xi’an. Fenzhou fu in Shanxi Province was excluded because its Pingyao, Jiexiu, and Fenyang counties were highly commercialized. The reason for excluding Pingyang fu in Shanxi Province was because of the short-term urbanization of Quwu county under that was under its jurisdiction. Diagrams 14 and 15 show that excluding the national capital and provincial capitals, as well as significantly high and low commercial areas, the level of urbanization in an area was related to the total population of that area. The six provinces of Zhili, Shandong, Henan, Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Gansu are grouped, as indicated in Diagram 16. As far as Gansu Province is concerned, due to the influence of the war, there was no obvious relationship between the urban population and the total population by county. However, there was a correlation between the urban and total population by prefecture. With regard to grouping the six northern provinces, the relationship between the urban population and the entire population by prefecture became crystal clear. In this analysis, the six northern provinces constitute a closely linked whole with an integrated urbanization process. Theoretically, Diagram 16 reveals that we can rely on Y  =  0.0424 X  +  15.139 (= 0.8664) to project the population of the northern provinces by prefecture in the mid-Qing Dynasty. In terms of the population of Sichuan, a model of the relationship between the urban population and the total population of Sichuan by county in 1910

502

Chapter 16

Ji Yu Lu Jin Shan Gan 9000 y = 18.719x - 24.174 R² = 0.8845

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

0

Diagram 16

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Relationship between the urban population and the total population by prefecture in the six northern provinces in 1910

was established based on the data from Nongshang Tables, Bai Meichu’s “Qin, Long, Qiang and Shu Provinces Zhi,” and the newly revised Local Records to project and calculate the urban population of other counties in Sichuan. The relationship between the urban population and the total population of Sichuan (excluding Chengdu and Chongqing Prefecture) by prefecture instead of by county in 1910 is shown in Diagram 17. Compared with the northern provinces, the relationship between the urban population and total population of Sichuan by prefecture is more closely related and has a higher degree of correlation. In other words, after excluding the provincial capital and Chongqing fu, which was significantly influenced by the opening of the port, Sichuan presented a typical traditional society. In terms of Jiangsu, Anhui, and Zhejiang provinces in the southeast, an indiscriminate urban and total population analysis by prefecture in 1910 using the regression analysis will lead to unreliable results. This is because there were highly urbanized areas such as Jiangning, the capital of Jiangsu and Hangzhou, the capital of Zhejiang provinces, and Yangzhou, Suzhou, Changzhou, and Songjiang. At the same time, there were also populous but low commercial places like Xuzhou, Yingzhou, Luzhou and Fengyang. Therefore, except for extreme cases, the relationship between the urban population and the total population by prefecture in 1910 is shown in Diagram 18.

503

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

Sichuan 5000 4500

y = 13.757x + 134.75 R² = 0.9169

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

0

50

Diagram 17

100

150

200

250

300

Relationship between the urban population and the total population of Sichuan by prefecture in 1910

Su Wan Zhe 4500.0 4000.0

y = 7.1571x + 521.47 R² = 0.6637

3500.0 3000.0 2500.0 2000.0 1500.0 1000.0 500.0 0.0

0

Diagram 18

100

200

300

400

Relationship between the urban population and the total population by prefecture in Jiangsu, Anhui and Zhejiang provinces in 1910

500

504

Chapter 16 Min Yue Xiang E Gan

Min Yue 8000.0

4500 y = 11.266x + 343.69 R² = 0.7718

4000 3500

7000.0

5000.0

2500

4000.0

2000

3000.0

1500 1000

2000.0

500

1000.0

0

y = 12.439x + 263.96 R² = 0.7799

6000.0

3000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0.0

0

100

200

300

400

500

Gui Qian Dian

Min Yue Xiang E Gan Gui Qian Dian 2500

8000.0 7000.0

y = 18.018x + 276.76 R² = 0.7613

2000

y = 12.231x + 347.56 R² = 0.7847

6000.0 5000.0

1500

4000.0 1000

3000.0 2000.0

500

1000.0 0.0

0

0

100

Diagram 19

200

300

400

500

0

20

40

60

80

100

Relationship between the urban population and the total population of the eight southern provinces by prefecture in 1910

In the same vein, the data of Fujian, Guangdong, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Guangxi, Guizhou, Yunnan provinces in the south were analyzed and combined as indicated in Diagram 19. In this case, only three prefectures, including Nanchang, Hanyang, and Guangzhou, which were provincial capitals, were excluded from the above analysis. In other words, the provincial capitals of Fujian, Changsha, Guangxi, Guizhou, and Yunnan provinces do not demonstrate the heterogeneity in their commercialization. To group Guangxi, Guizhou, and Yunnan, we would have to exclude Yunnan Prefecture and Guiyang Prefecture and Lin’an Prefecture in Yunnan, which had a relatively high level of urbanization. Lin’an Prefecture increased its level of urbanization due to the Yunnan-Vietnam trade and the mining in Gejiu, Jianshui, Mengzi, Honghe, and other counties and cities. Table 38 is obtained by comparing and contrasting diagrams 14 to 19. In the southern regions, originally Fujian and Guangdong, it turned out that in Fujian, Guangdong, Hunan, Hubei, and Jiangxi, the relationship between the urban population and the total population by prefecture has remained the same. The data suggests a certain degree of consistency in the urbanization of central and south China.

505

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty Table 38

Relationship between the urban population and the total population of all provinces by prefecture in 1910

Province

a

b

R2

Jiangsu, Anhui, and Zhejiang Min (Fujian) Yue (Guangdong) Fujian, Guangdong, Hunan, Hubei, and Jiangxi Fujian, Guangdong, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Guizhou, Guizhou, and Yunnan Guangxi, Guizhou, and Yunnan Sichuan Hebei, Henan, and Shandong Shanxi and Shaanxi Hebei, Henan, Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Ganshu

7.1571 11.266 12.439 12.231

521.47 343.69 263.96 347.56

0.6637 0.7718 0.7799 0.7847

18.018 13.757 20.371 11.018 18.719

276.76 134.75 −63.095 170.03 −24.174

0.7613 0.9169 0.8278 0.8097 0.8845

With the exclusion of highly developed and underdeveloped areas, most areas in the three provinces of Jiangsu, Anhui, and Zhejiang in the East China also followed the same urbanization pattern, i.e., the larger the total population, the larger the urban population. However, the East China model is very different from the model of Central China, South China, and Southwest China. The urbanization of the Southwest region is also very different from that of the regions mentioned above. The urban population model of Zhili, Henan, and Shandong provinces in the northern regions is significantly different from the model of Shanxi and Shaanxi provinces. However, when grouped, their population model tends to resemble the model of Hebei, Henan, and Shandong Province. Most interestingly, the Sichuan model is the closest to the Shanxi-Shaanxi model. In other words, with the exclusion of respective capital cities, the urban population models of the northwest and southwest regions are similar. In contrast, the models of the three Northern China provinces are relatively independent. 3.2 Urbanization Level by Prefectures At this point, it is possible to project the level of urbanization of China’s “inland” areas in 1910 (Xuantong 2nd year). The so-called “inland” areas refer to the 18 provinces of the Qing Dynasty. In the grassland areas of the northeast and north China, cities had already emerged in 1910. Due to personal limitations and to better compare and contrast the urbanization in the middle

Map 19

Level of urbanization by prefecture in 1910

Urban Population at the End of the Qing Dynasty

507

of the Qing Dynasty, the scope of this research was limited to 18 provinces and regions. After experiencing destruction and restoration in the second half of the 19th century, the urbanization of 18 provinces in inland China in 1910 roughly returned to the 1776 level. However, due to the decline in the status of Chengde Prefecture and the decline of trade with Russia, the level of urbanization of places north of the Great Wall declined rapidly. In contrast, the level of urbanization in the Yangtze River Delta increased. However, in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, the level of urbanization decreased significantly. The discussion about the level of urbanization in the provinces at the end of the Qing Dynasty is shown in Table 40.

Chapter 17

Conclusion 1

Changes in the Total Population

Considering the administrative districts in 1393 as the benchmark, the changes in the provincial population from 1393 to 1953 are listed in Table 39. China’s population hit an all-time high in history with an average annual growth rate of 4.6‰ increasing from 74.29 million in 1393 to 221.06 million in 1630 with and averaging an annual growth rate of 4.6‰, After the massacres and epidemics at the turn of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the population dropped to 184.88 million in 1650, a net decrease of 36.18 million from that of 1630. The “Revolt of the Three Feudatories” that involved several southern provinces led to tens of millions of deaths despite the slight increase in the total population in the country. From 1776 to 1820, the population increased from 309.24 million to 378.68 million paradoxically maintaining the same average annual population growth rate of 4.6‰. From 1650 to 1820, this percentage rose to 5.1‰, slightly higher than that of the Ming Dynasty. Beginning from Table 39 Region

China’s population by province from 1393 to 1953 1393

Beiping

2,936

1580 8,611

1630 11,715

1650

1680

1776

8,471 10,246 19,084

1820

1910

22,749

37,328

1953 40,568

Shandong

6,039 13,066

16,101 17,191 19,568 27,880

32,326

43,881

47,997

Shaanxi

2,998

10,923

9,460 17,973

23,284

9,545

25,074

Henan

3,283 10,667

14,609 12,840 15,581 22,698

27,021

31,087

42,099

Shanxi

4,726

12,171

7,872 12,152

14,219

11,867

13,307

Southern Jingshi

9,026 18,567

22,537 15,356 17,278 26,223

32,348

15,705

26,810

Northern Jingshi

3,535 10,907

14,753 14,676 17,608 32,064

39,155

41,847

51,044

Jiangxi

8,164 16,129

19,382 20,408 11,310 18,734

22,350

14,961

16,561

Southern Huguang

2,507

7,701

10,548

7,466

8,861 15,506

19,292

26,320

33,839

Northern Huguang

2,034

9,239

14,832

7,602

9,803 16,173

19,482

22,077

27,374

Fujian

3,995

7,686

9,458 10,044

8,069 11,812

13,491

13,039

13,039

8,266 9,950

7,922 6,975

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_018

509

Conclusion Table 39

China’s population by province from 1393 to 1953 (cont.)

Region

1393

Zhejiang

11,237 20,952

Guangdong

1580

3,840

1630

8,303

1650

1680

1776

1910

27,335

18,490

22,694

10,484 11,563 13,411 18,445

21,405

29,461

34,419

Guangxi

1,740

3,952

4,207

3,964

1,986

5,151

6,665

744

Guizhou

1,423

2,377

2,735

3,129

3,842

Yunnan

1,048

2,617

3,378

3,745

Liaodong dusi (Regional Military Commission)

500

2,500

3,844

Nurgan dusi (Regional Military Commission)

500

1,055

1,288

4,719

7,496

9,281

14,535

17,686

842 16,103

22,765

45,633

65,358

5,578

7,007

12,047

14,132

4,384

7,271

9,506

13,468

15,113

232

300

610

1,757

10,696

18,545

908

1,023

402

735

7,458

23,187

536

610

908

Beiping xingsi

530

50

50

50

55

67

80

Wanquan dengwei

330

702

750

759

857

1,039

1238

75

50

55

57

61

74

88

Shaanxi dusi (Regional Military Commission)

152

708

1,080

1,229

1,584

2,392

2,813

Shaanxi xingsi

215

955

1435

1482

1,897

3,010

3,358

Xinjiang

300

636

835

434

519

920

1,183

90

159

184

71

81

315

406

Dongsheng dengwei

Sichuan Dusi (Regional Military Commission) Sichuan xingsi

178

314

365

572

626

812

1025

Tibet

800

800

917

936

1,035

1,140

1,190

Taiwan

100

100

100

134

134

900

1,787

22,1060 18,4878 18,6201 30,9238

37,8676

Total

74,287 17,2171

Average annual growth rate (‰)

4.5

1953

24,751 25,919 15,175 22,365

Sichuan

Mongolia

1820

5

−9

0

5.3

4.6

3,497

7,161

1,721

3,435 2,699

4,774 925

2,070 1,656

1,274 7,591

43,4994 1.5

57,1246 6.4

510

Chapter 17

popula�on(1000) 600000 500000 400000

300000 200000 100000 0

1393

Diagram 20

1580

1630

1650

1680

1776

1820

1850

1880

1910

1953

China’s population growth from 1393–1953 Note: The data of 1850 and 1880 come from Cao, S. (2001). Qing Shiqi (The Qing Dynasty). In Zhongguo Renkou Shi (The Population History of China) (Vol. 5), p. 832.

1851, there was a significant loss in the population resulting in a succession of unfortunate events, including the Taiping Rebellion, the Dungan Revolt, and the Famine in Guangxu period, plunging the people into an abyss of misery. Nevertheless, from 1820 to 1910, China maintained a slow population growth of 1.5‰ with a population, totaling 434.99 million. By 1953, the average annual population growth rate was as high as 6.4‰, even though average annual population growth rate from 1910 to 1949 has been only 5‰ if the high population growth of 20‰ from 1949 to 1953 is not considered. 2

Changes in the Level of Urbanization

In the data of 1953, the urban population of Henan Province was said to be 3,681,093, whereas the actual figure may have been 6,810,093. Accordingly, the urbanization rate was miscalculated as 32.8%, and then it was revised to only 6.1% after correction as outlined in Table 40, which shows the changes in the provincial urbanization level in China from 1391 to 1953. It should be noted that there were two different types of urbanization levels in the Ming Dynasty namely, the urbanization of the civilian population and

Conclusion

511

the urbanization of the total population. The military population was included in the former level but not in the latter. As a result, a large number of garrisons and their families were considered part of the urban population. This was very different from the urbanization status of the Qing Dynasty. Hence the urbanization data of the Ming Dynasty need to be revised. A comparison of the two sets of data of the Hongwu period shows that in Beiping, Shaanxi, Sichuan, and Northern Huguang, the urban population (including garrisons) was 1.4 to 1.7 times that of the civilian population. Similarly, the urban population (including garrisons) in 1580 (Wanli 8th year) ought to be 1.4 to 1.7 times higher than the actual level. The relocation of the capital during the reign of Yongle Emperor brought a large number of military personnel from Nanjing to Beiping coupled with a surge in the urban population in Beijing and a decrease in Nanjing. These changes meant the urbanization levels of the two areas were only 95% compared with the percentage during the Hongwu period meaning the data of both places needs no correction. The urbanization rates of other regions in 1580 are revised according to the urbanization rate (including garrisons) and the urbanization rate of the civilian population in 1393 as is shown in Table 40. It should be noted that in Table 40, Southern and Northern Jingshi in the Ming Dynasty referred to the two areas of Jingshi bordered by the Yangtze River, which were not administrative provincial districts, while in the Qing Dynasty, they referred to Jiangsu Province and Anhui Province. The urbanization rate of the civilian population was 7.5% in 1393 and 9.5% in 1580 after it was revised indicating a significant increase in the urbanization rate in the Ming Dynasty. Interestingly, the urbanization rate in 1580 even exceeded the 7.3% rate in 1776. The mid-Qing Dynasty which was characterized by a booming commodity economy and town economy only reached the same urbanization level as the early Ming Dynasty, which remained lower compared with the late Ming Dynasty. Due to insufficient data as well as omissions in statistical data, the urbanization rate in 1910 was only 7.8%. Compared with the data of 1953 that included the three Northeast provinces of Liaoning, Jilin, and Heilongjiang, the urbanization rate in 1910 ought to have been close to 9%, yet still lower than that of the late Ming Dynasty. In 1953, China achieved an urbanization rate of 13.5%, thanks to the rapid increase in the urban population of Shanghai and Beijing and the rapid urbanization of Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang, as well as border areas including Qinghai, Gansu, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Yunnan, and Guizhou. In other words, urbanization in the first half of the 20th century mainly took place in border areas, but this has not been sufficiently discussed by academia.

512 Table 40

Chapter 17 China’s urbanization rate from 1391–1953 (%)

Province

1393 Total population

1393 Civilian population

1580 Total population

1580 Revised

1776

1910

1953

Beiping Shandong Shaanxi Henan Shanxi Southern Jingshi Northern Jingshi Jiangxi Southern Huguang Northern Huguang Fujian Zhejiang Guangdong Guangxi Sichuan Yunnan Guizhou Gansu Qinghai Liaoning Jilin Heilongjiang Rehe Inner Mongolia Total

10.3 5.6 6 7.1 6.2 16.1 7.9 5.7 7.4 8.7 14.2 5.3 7.9 6.8 8.4

6.2 5.2 4 5.8 5.6 16.9 6.6 5.3 6.1 6.4 13.5 5.1 6.9 5.6 6

20.5 14.6 7 7.5 6.4 12.9 10.3 7.8 8 9.3 11.9 8.4 12.6 8.9 10.8

20.5 13.6 4.7 6.1 5.8 12.9 10.3 7.3 6.6 6.8 11.3 8.1 11 7.3 7.7

12.5 5.1 7.8 6.6 6.4 11.1 5.2 9.4 5.2 7 8.6 9.4 8.7 2.1 6.6 6.9 4.6 2.5

10 6.3 9.9 5.5 10.6 15 5.5 9.8 5.2 9.3 6.6 11.7 10.2 3.8 8.5 4.8 3.8 7.5

8.3

7.5

10.4

9.5

7.3

7.8

20.7 4.7 11.4 6.1 11.6 24.7 8.7 10.4 7.2 10.5 18.6 13.6 17.5 8.5 9.2 9.1 7.3 12.2 11.6 31.1 22.9 30.5 6.2 14.7 13.5

Appendix 1

Population and Population Density of Regions in the Ming Dynasty Area unit: square kilometers; population unit: thousand people; population density: people/square kilometers; average annual population growth rate: ‰

Region

Area

Population from 1391 to 1393 Civilian Military Total population population

Beiping Beiping fu Baoding fu Zhending fu Hejian fu Yongping fu Shunde fu Quangping fu Daming fu Total Shandong Jinan fu Dongchang fu Yanzhou fu Qingzhou fu Laizhou fu Dengzhou fu Total Shaanxi Xi’an fu Fengxiang fu Hanzhong fu Pingliang fu Gongchang fu Lintao fu Qingyang fu Yan’an fu total

1393–1580

Density Average annual growth rate

1580 Population Density

32435 361 16398 380 27483 700 21570 380 11192 76 6567 170 5446 210 11965 340 133056 2617

269 0 17 0 33 0 0 0 319

630 380 717 380 109 170 210 340 2936

19.4 23.2 26.1 17.6 9.7 25.9 38.6 28.4 22.1

9.1 5.6 2.3 5.1 7.5 2.7 2.9 5.4 5.8

3451 1074 1094 977 444 282 360 929 8611

106.4 65.5 39.8 45.3 39.7 42.9 66.1 77.6 64.7

32586 12387 40082 31010 15834 18388 150287

1130 110 1050 1880 850 805 5825

33 17 15 50 20 33 214

1163 127 1065 1930 870 838 6042

35.7 10.3 26.6 62.2 54.9 45.6 40.2

5.6 10.1 4.5 2.9 3.0 3.4 4.1

3332 831 2466 3337 1512 1588 13066

102.3 67.1 61.5 107.6 95.5 86.4 86.9

56933 1358 14261 240 52248 60 36305 195 51357 252 37956 52 20735 92 66960 409 336755 2658

134 3 20 17 33 33 17 83 340

1492 243 80 212 285 85 109 492 2998

25.9 16.8 1.5 5.8 5.5 2.2 5.3 7.3 8.8

4.5 5.0 8.2 6.5 6.5 8.1 5.8 5.8 5.4

3455 618 368 712 957 384 321 1451 8266

60.7 43.3 7.1 19.6 18.6 10.1 15.5 21.7 24.5

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_019

514

Appendix 1

(cont.) Region

Area

Population from 1391 to 1393 Civilian Military Total population population

Henan Kaifeng fu Henan fu Changde fu Huaiqing fu Weihui fu Nanyang fu Runing fu total Shanxi Taiyuan fu Pingyang fu Luzhou Fenzhou fu Datong fu Zezhou Qinzhou Liaozhou total Jingshinan Yingtian fu Suzhou fu Songjiang fu Changzhou fu Zhenjiang fu Taiping fu Chizhou fu Huizhou fu Ningguo fu Guangde zhou total Jingshibei Xuzhou fu Huai’an fu Yangzhou fu Fengyang fu Chuzhou Luzhou fu Anqing fu Hezhou fu total

1393–1580

Density Average annual growth rate

1580 Population Density

43701 1277 25616 570 9725 244 6041 245 4632 144 38850 274 34488 210 163053 2964

118 67 17 17 17 50 33 319

1395 637 261 262 161 324 243 3283

31.2 24.2 26.8 43.4 34.8 7.9 7.1 19.7

6.4 4.1 5.1 7.2 4.9 8.2 7.9 6.3

4635 1379 676 1010 404 1500 1063 10667

106.1 53.8 69.5 167.2 87.2 38.6 30.8 65.4

61929 854 38496 1848 8901 644 4860 244 31134 167 9942 475 5436 95 5785 83 166483 4410

91 37 17 0 168 0 3 0 316

945 1885 661 244 335 475 98 83 4726

15.3 48.4 74.3 50.2 10.5 47.8 18.0 14.3 28.2

3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 6.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0

1921 3831 1343 496 1025 965 199 169 9950

31.0 99.5 150.9 102.0 32.9 97.1 36.6 29.2 59.8

1401 2355 1220 776 544 290 199 592 532 276 8185

706 50 17 0 17 0 17 17 17 0 841

2107 2405 1237 776 561 290 216 609 549 276 9026

228.4 269.0 286.7 113.7 150.9 91.0 21.2 49.6 45.5 77.4 121.667

3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 6.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9

4282 4888 2514 1577 1140 589 661 1238 1116 561 18567

464.2 558.3 590.7 231.1 316.2 185.0 65.0 103.7 95.5 157.3 253.6

10095 213 28240 744 20466 794 56571 427 4900 27 24230 431 14967 430 2557 77 162026 3143

17 50 50 208 17 33 17 0 392

230 794 844 635 44 464 447 77 3535

22.8 27.5 41.2 10.9 7.1 17.8 29.9 33.2 21.4

6.6 6.0 6.0 6.5 5.0 5.6 6.0 4.4 6.0

787 2430 2583 2133 112 1318 1368 175 10907

78.0 86.1 126.2 37.7 22.8 54.4 91.4 68.4 67.3

9225 8755 4256 6825 3606 3186 10176 11931 11690 3566 73216

515

Population and Population Density of Regions (cont.) Region

Jiangxi Nanchang fu Raozhou fu Guangxin fu Nankang fu Jiujiang fu Jianchang fu Fǔzhou fu Linjiang fu Ji’an fu Ruizhou fu Yuanzhou fu Ganzhou fu Nan’an fu total Huguangnan Changde fu Yuezhou fu Changsha fu Baoqing fu Yongzhou fu Hengzhou fu Chenzhou Chenzhou fu Jingzhou Yongshun Baojing total Huguangbei Huangzhou fu Xiangyang fu Mianyang fu De’an fu Wuchang fu Hanyang fu Jingzhou fu Anlu fu Shizhou fu total

Area

Population from 1391 to 1393

1393–1580

1580

Civilian Military Total population population

Density Average annual growth rate

Population Density

1114 921 486 196 85 513 1202 546 1718 429 383 366 75 8034

33 3 7 0 17 3 3 0 24 0 17 20 3 130

1147 924 493 196 102 516 1205 546 1742 429 400 386 78 8164

50.2 61.4 35.5 38.6 12.6 63.9 117.7 99.9 70.5 80.4 43.4 12.0 11.3 49.1

4.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 6.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.0 4.0 3.6

2656 1743 930 370 324 973 2273 1030 3286 809 755 814 165 16129

117.9 116.3 67.0 72.8 48.2 120.5 222.0 188.4 134.1 151.6 81.9 25.3 23.8 97.7

30214 243 12966 218 43115 537 22151 148 29014 427 24310 300 13556 110 24083 180 11053 100 7786 35 4441 8 222689 2306

50 17 33 17 17 17 0 33 17 0 0 201

293 235 570 165 444 317 110 213 117 35 8 2507

9.9 18.1 13.2 7.6 15.4 13.0 8.6 8.8 10.6 4.5 1.8 11.3

8.2 6.0 7.5 6.1 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.9 6.0

1347 719 2293 514 943 669 297 541 247 107 24 7701

44.6 55.5 53.2 23.2 32.5 27.5 21.9 22.5 22.3 13.7 5.4 34.6

21040 740 44063 86 13033 71 14892 70 18565 300 3519 50 39564 354 3982 41 18842 138 177500 1850

33 17 17 0 33 0 50 17 17 184

773 103 88 70 333 50 404 58 155 2034

36.7 2.7 6.8 4.9 17.9 14.2 10.4 14.6 8.4 11.6

6.5 15.7 11.0 12.2 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.6 8.1

2596 1891 681 679 1118 168 1380 195 531 9239

123.4 42.9 52.3 45.6 60.2 47.7 34.9 49.0 28.2 52.1

22524 14988 13872 5082 6721 8079 10240 5468 24507 5337 9219 32172 6914 165123

516

Appendix 1

(cont.) Region

Area

Population from 1391 to 1393 Civilian Military Total population population

Fujian Fuzhou fu Tingzhou fu Shaowu fu Jianning fu Xinghua fu Yanping fu Quanzhou fu Zhangzhou fu total Zhejiang Hangzhou fu Yanzhou fu Shaoxing fu Jiaxing fu Huzhou fu Taizhou fu Wenzhou fu Quzhou Ningbo fu Jinghua fu Chuzhou fu total Guangdong Guangzhou fu Shaozhou fu Nanxiong fu Huizhou fu Chaozhou fu Zhaoqing fu Gaozhou fu Lianzhou fu Leizhou fu Qiongzhou fu total Guangxi Guilin fu Liuzhou fu Qingyuan fu

1393–1580

Density Average annual growth rate

1580 Population Density

22657 634 20242 291 8747 236 18722 690 3810 320 18036 560 12436 530 18428 440 123078 3701

84 20 17 54 33 20 33 33 294

718 311 253 744 353 580 563 473 3995

31.7 15.4 28.9 38.6 92.7 32.2 45.3 25.7 32.3

5.5 3.4 1.6 −0.6 3.4 −0.4 5.5 5.5 3.5

2002 587 339 666 666 537 1570 1319 7686

88.4 29.0 38.8 35.6 174.8 29.8 126.2 71.6 62.4

7881 8491 9651 3336 6297 11863 11712 9573 6796 10363 19082 105045

37 3 33 20 3 50 50 0 67 0 17 280

1118 355 1368 1658 1203 1037 943 537 990 1280 748 11237

141.9 41.8 141.7 497.0 191.0 87.4 80.5 56.1 145.7 125.2 39.2 107.1

3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.3

2070 670 2533 3131 2270 1920 1746 1013 1800 2415 1385 20952

262.7 78.9 262.5 938.4 360.5 161.8 149.1 105.8 264.9 233.0 72.6 199.5

107 3 3 20 20 24 3 0 17 27 224

1275 106 90 160 468 589 145 97 308 602 3840

35.0 5.7 18.9 4.1 22.3 17.4 9.7 6.3 36.5 16.6 16.7

4.5 7.2 1.2 8.0 4.5 3.2 8.0 6.2 1.0 0.6 4.1

2930 405 113 710 1084 1070 643 306 371 671 8303

79.7 21.6 23.8 18.1 51.6 31.5 43.2 16.8 43.9 17.9 35.6

50 17 0

570 276 82

29.6 8.9 3.0

3.8 3.8 4.0

1156 568 174

60.0 18.4 6.3

1081 352 1335 1638 1200 987 893 537 923 1280 731 10957

36783 1168 18713 103 4751 87 39226 140 21000 448 33941 565 14890 142 18198 97 8447 291 37544 575 233493 3616 19260 30923 27738

520 259 82

517

Population and Population Density of Regions (cont.) Region

Area

Population from 1391 to 1393 Civilian Military Total population population

Wuzhou fu Nanning fu Xunzhou fu Pingle fu Si’en fu Sichengzhou Tianzhou Zhen’an fu Taiping fu Siming fu Longzhou Jiangzhou Silingzhou total Sichuan Chengdu fu Baoning fu Shunqing fu Kuizhou fu Chongqing fu Xuzhou fu Tongchuan fu Meizhou Jiading fu Luzhou Yazhou Yongning Lizhou Mahu fu Wumeng fu Dongchuan fu Usha fu Zhenxiong fu total Guizhou Xuanwei si, Guizhou Weiqing wei Pingba wei

1393–1580

Density Average annual growth rate

1580 Population Density

29096 268 15595 53 11839 65 21238 10 12889 58 29248 131 7203 32 10552 47 9151 49 3564 4 751 3 814 4 684 3 230545 1588

3 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 152

271 86 65 10 58 131 32 47 98 4 3 4 3 1740

9.3 5.5 5.5 0.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.5 10.7 1.1 4.0 4.9 4.4 7.5

4.0 2.8 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.4 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

573 146 138 21 116 261 64 94 153 9 6 8 6 3492

19.7 9.3 11.7 1.0 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.9 16.7 2.4 8.0 9.8 8.8 15.1

36802 273 33268 71 17691 132 43583 80 55103 485 14141 242 16635 77 3072 42 12636 85 7619 119 4537 14 4816 15 3400 3 12947 22 10514 22 11487 22 10275 22 9084 22 307610 1748

141 3 3 17 17 17 0 0 0 17 3 17 0.2 0 0 0 17 0 240

414 74 135 97 502 259 77 42 85 136 17 15 3.2 25 22 22 39 22 1988

11.6 2.1 7.5 1.8 9.1 18.3 4.6 13.7 6.7 17.9 3.1 3.1 0.9 1.9 2.1 1.9 3.8 2.4 6.4

5.5 5.1 5.2 4.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.3 5.3 4.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.1 5.1

1150 191 355 215 1349 696 207 113 228 365 38 40 8 44 39 39 47 27 5151

31.2 5.7 20.1 4.9 24.5 49.2 12.4 36.8 18.0 47.9 8.4 8.3 2.4 3.4 3.7 3.4 4.6 3.0 16.7

32356

205

34

239

7.4

3.0

418

12.9

612 784

0 0

7 17

7 17

11.4 21.7

7.8 3.0

30 30

49.0 38.3

518

Appendix 1

(cont.) Region

Area

Population from 1391 to 1393 Civilian Military Total population population

Anzhuang wei Annan wei Pu’an wei Bijie wei Chishui wei Puding wei Xinglong wei Duyun and Qingping Pingyue wei Xintian wei Longliwei Pingxi wei Zhenyuan, Pianqiao, Qinglang Wukai wei Banzhou xuanweisi Sinan xuanweisi Sizhou xuanweisi total Yunnan Yunnan fu Qujing fu Xundian fu Lin’an fu Chengjiang fu Guangxi fu Quangnan fu Yuanjiang fu Chuxiong fu Zhelediansi Yao’an fu Wuding fu Jingdong fu Dali fu Heqing fu Lijiang fu

1393–1580

Density Average annual growth rate

1580 Population Density

3069 6039 10442 2219 4010 2969 437 10071

22 22 22 22 22 68 0 50

20 17 17 17 26 17 20 34

42 39 39 39 48 85 20 84

13.7 6.5 3.7 17.6 12.0 28.6 45.8 8.3

3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.2 4.2

74 62 68 62 77 149 51 145

24.1 10.3 6.5 27.9 19.2 50.2 116.7 14.4

1282 2261 1233 2599 4611

27 19 4 38 19

17 17 17 17 51

44 36 21 55 70

34.3 15.9 17.0 21.2 15.2

2.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.6

69 61 35 86 117

53.8 27.0 28.4 33.1 25.4

18706 29384

54 270

53 0

107 270

5.7 9.2

5.9 3.0

170 473

9.1 16.1

9664

96

0

96

9.9

0.9

114

11.8

11222

65

0

65

5.8

4.4

147

13.1

153970 1025

398

1423

9.2

2.9

2438

15.8

83 66 0 17 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 17 33 0 0

132 87 5 111 40 19 33 17 38 5 9 14 78 126 45 78

12.4 4.2 1.2 2.4 7.9 1.2 2.3 1.1 1.5 0.3 1.0 1.6 9.9 8.5 1.7 1.6

5.3 3.6 6.1 6.0 6.2 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.3 5.8 7.3 7.2 1.1 4.7 3.4 3.4

357 169 16 340 128 49 90 49 123 15 35 54 96 300 96 148

33.6 8.1 3.8 7.3 25.1 3.1 6.4 3.1 4.7 0.8 3.8 6.1 12.2 20.4 3.5 3.0

10613 20903 4142 46249 5080 15986 14074 16081 26191 18589 9216 8857 7878 14751 27121 49167

50 21 5 95 40 19 33 17 22 5 9 14 62 93 45 78

519

Population and Population Density of Regions (cont.) Region

Area

Population from 1391 to 1393 Civilian Military Total population population

Menghua fu 3116 Shunning fu 3678 Mengding fu 30685 Mengmian sidi 6711 Dahou si 3700 Jinchi si 36285 Mangshi si 1654 Zhenkang zhou 18589 Wandian zhou 1701 Ganya si 3887 Nandian si 6712 Longchuan fu 18589 Cheli si 29459 Weiyuan fu 26191 total 485855 Northeast region Liaodong fu 68144 Nurgan dusi 3000000 Mongolia Remaining tribes of Beiyuan The three wei of Wuliangha Horqin Tartar total 4212432 Northern Military Guard Beiping 162798 xingdusi Wanquan and 11630 other wei Dongsheng and 78006 other wei Shaanxi dusi Ningxia 29400 Taozhou wei 25691 Minzhou wei 9919 total 65010

1393–1580

Density Average annual growth rate

1580 Population Density

20 7 12 5 8 51 5 3 8 2 5 3 42 8 784

17 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 264

36 7 12 5 8 67 5 3 8 2 5 3 42 8 1048

11.6 1.9 0.4 0.7 2.2 1.8 3.0 0.2 4.7 0.5 0.7 0.2 1.4 0.3 2.2

2.8 6.7 6.4 6.3 5.0 5.3 4.9 5.9 2.7 7.2 3.2 6.4 5.9 6.1 4.9

61 24 40 16 20 179 13 9 13 8 9 10 127 25 2617

19.5 6.6 1.3 2.4 5.5 4.9 7.6 0.5 7.8 2.0 1.4 0.5 4.3 0.9 5.4

104 500

396 0

500 500

7.3 0.2

8.6 4.0

2500 1055

36.7 0.4

150

0

150

100

0

100

10 100 360

0 0 0

10 100 360

0.1

4.0

766

0.2

80

450

530

2.8

−12.5

50

0.3

30

300

330

28.4

4.0

702

60.4

8

67

75

1

−2.2

50

0.6

17 8 20 45

67 20 20 107

84 28 40 152

9.1 4.9 8.0 8.3

460 70 178 708

15.6 2.7 17.9 10.9

2.9 1.1 4.0 2.3

520

Appendix 1

(cont.) Region

Area

Population from 1391 to 1393 Civilian Military Total population population

Shaanxi xingdusi The three wei 34130 of Ganzhou Shandan wei 3099 Yongchang wei 6676 Liangzhou wei 6587 Linhe wei 1709 Zhuanglang 12649 wei Xining wei 20813 total 85663 Xinjiang region Arui wei 454475 Ili Baliq 706142 Dughlat 1114696 total 1160617 Sichuan dusi Songpan wei 38840 Longzhou wei 11560 Diexi suo 1177 Tianquan 4485 zhaotaosi total 56062 Sichuan 45830 xingdusi Tibet 1880740 Taiwan 36000

1393–1580

Density Average annual growth rate

1580 Population Density

25

31

56

1.6

9.3

315

9.2

8 9 9 8 9

13 15 39 7 17

21 24 48 15 26

6.8 3.6 7.3 8.8 2.1

5.5 5.6 7.9 8.0 8.0

59 68 210 66 115

19.0 10.2 31.9 38.6 9.1

9 77

16 138

25 215

1.2 2.5

8.5 8.0

122 955

5.9 11.1

70 150 80 300

0 0 0 0

70 150 80 300

0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3

5.5 5.4 4.0

0 415 221 636

0.0 0.6 0.2 0.5

34 34 2 8

3 3 3 3

37 37 5 11

1 3.2 4.2 2.5

3.0 3.0 3.1 2.9

65 65 9 19

1.7 5.6 7.6 4.2

78 67

12 111

90 178

1.6 3.9

3.0 3.0

159 314

2.8 6.9

800 100

0 0

800 100

0.4 2.8

0.0 0.0

800 100

0.4 0.0

Appendix 2

The Number of Li, the Population of Inner Cities and Fu Captials in 1393 (Hongwu’s 26th Year) Population unit: thousand people

Region

Beiping Beiping fu Baoding fu Zhending fu Hejian fu Yongping fu Shunde fu Quangping fu Daming fu total Shandong Jinan fu Dongchang fu Yanzhou fu Qingzhou fu Laizhou fu Dengzhou fu total Shaanxi Xi’an fu Fengxiang fu Hanzhong fu Pingliang fu Gongchang fu Lintao fu Qingyang fu Yan’an fu total Henan Kaifeng fu Henan fu Changde fu Huaiqing fu

Fu-li

Fu-li Fu Fuguo-li Chengli Civilian fu Fucheng Fucheng proportion population proportion population military overall proportion population population

723 379 498 310 181 144 184 339 2758

0.262 0.137 0.181 0.112 0.066 0.052 0.067 0.123

0.138 0.145 0.267 0.145 0.029 0.065 0.080 0.130

1414 400 862 1726 673 543 5618

0.252 0.071 0.153 0.307 0.120 0.097

0.194 0.019 0.180 0.323 0.146 0.138

1192 211 53 125 221 46 123 359 2330

0.512 0.091 0.023 0.054 0.095 0.020 0.053 0.154

857 554 289 315

0.308 0.199 0.104 0.113

0.431 0.192 0.082 0.083

25 4 2 2 0 4 2 1 40

128 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 139

153 4 7 2 6 4 2 1 179

0.090 0.137 0.083 0.078 0.075 0.082

3 1 2 23 8 8 45

6 6 6 11 6 6 39

9 6 8 34 14 14 84

137 40 5 23 32 25 32 27 321

0.103 0.115 0.206 0.154 0.157 0.200 0.160 0.149

16 5 1 6 6 6 4 5 48

39 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 74

55 6 7 11 11 11 9 10 122

124 87 84 102

0.096 0.105 0.101 0.085

18 9 7 7

28 6 6 6

46 15 13 12

24 13 27 11 32 32 6 145

0.167 0.101 0.074 0.091 0.094 0.063 0.097

42 23 22 267 83 65 502

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_020

522

Appendix 2

(cont.) Region

Weihui fu Nanyang fu Runing fu total Shanxi Taiyuan fu Pingyang fu Luzhou fu Fenzhou fu Datong fu Zezhou Qinzhou Liaozhou total Jingshinan Yingtian fu Suzhou fu Songjiang Changzhou fu Zhenjiang fu Taiping fu Chizhou fu Huizhou fu Ningguo fu Guangde zhou total Jingshibei Xuzhou fu Huai’an fu Yangzhou fu Fengyang fu Chuzhou Luzhou fu Anqing fu Hezhou fu total Jiangxi Nanchang fu Raozhou fu Guangxin fu Nankang fu Jiujiang fu Jianchang fu Fǔzhou fu Linjiang fu

Fu-li

Fu-li Fu Fuguo-li Chengli Civilian fu Fucheng Fucheng proportion population proportion population military overall proportion population population

212 0.076 338 0.121 219 0.079 2784

0.049 0.092 0.071

38 9 9 453

0.094 0.144 0.149

2 1 1 46

6 6 6 62

8 7 7 107

997 1627 635 133 124 556 141 81 4294

0.232 0.379 0.148 0.031 0.029 0.129 0.033 0.019

0.194 0.420 0.146 0.055 0.036 0.108 0.022 0.019

95 151 170 95 26 167 66 27 797

0.122 0.079 0.065 0.078 0.154 0.079 0.114 0.120

10 14 11 14 5 11 5 3 73

22 6 6 0 6 6 1 0 46

32 19 17 14 11 17 6 3 119

1084 3436 1440 1508 566 216 86 679 487 237 9739

0.111 0.353 0.148 0.155 0.058 0.022 0.009 0.070 0.050 0.024

0.171 0.288 0.149 0.095 0.066 0.035 0.024 0.072 0.065 0.034

800 328 13 9 21 13 7 16 7 9 1223

20 28 6 0 6 0 6 6 6 0 76

820 356 18 9 26 13 13 22 12 9 1299

218 665 1005 535 31 274 330 58 3116

0.070 0.213 0.323 0.172 0.010 0.088 0.106 0.019

1566 1162 472 216 82 523 1345 1086

0.154 0.114 0.046 0.021 0.008 0.051 0.132 0.107

820 408 270 169 29 215 217 127 2255

0.018 0.044 0.080 0.057 0.103 0.087 0.028 0.063

0.068 0.237 0.253 0.136 0.009 0.137 0.137 0.024

105 101 118 36 12 56 52 41 521

0.107 0.120 0.086 0.142 0.153 0.113 0.097 0.095

11 14 94 4 2 10 7 5 146

6 11 6 34 3 6 6 0 71

17 25 100 38 5 16 13 5 217

0.139 0.115 0.060 0.024 0.011 0.064 0.150 0.068

696 337 108 24 16 284 625 268

0.077 0.071 0.090 0.087 0.125 0.086 0.041 0.061

38 19 10 2 2 19 23 8

11 1 1 0 6 1 1 0

49 20 11 2 8 20 24 8

The Number of Li, the Population of Inner Cities and Fu Captials

523

(cont.) Region

Fu-li

Fu-li Fu Fuguo-li Chengli Civilian fu Fucheng Fucheng proportion population proportion population military overall proportion population population

Ji’an fu Ruizhou fu Yuanzhou fu Ganzhou fu Nan’an fu total Huguangnan Changde fu Yuezhou fu Changsha fu Baoqing fu Yongzhou fu Hengzhou fu Chenzhou Chenzhou fu Jingzhou Yongshun Baojing total Huguangbei Huangzhou fu Xiangyang fu Mianyang fu De’an fu Wuchang fu Hanyang fu Jingzhou fu Anlu fu Shizhou fu total Fujian Fuzhou fu Tingzhou fu Shaowu fu Jianning fu Xinghua fu Yanping fu Quanzhou fu Zhangzhou fu total Zhejiang Hangzhou fu Yanzhou fu Shaoxing fu Jiaxing fu

2225 600 494 359 63 10193

0.218 0.059 0.048 0.035 0.006

0.214 0.053 0.048 0.046 0.009

600 296 150 112 20

0.066 0.050 0.100 0.165 0.176

31 11 12 19 4 197

3 0 6 6 1 37

34 11 17 24 5 234

206 164 391 120 267 263 72 168 87

0.119 0.094 0.225 0.069 0.154 0.151 0.041 0.097 0.050

0.105 0.095 0.233 0.064 0.185 0.130 0.048 0.078 0.043

45 53 44 46 28 51 12 58 22

0.089 0.038 0.216 0.048 0.130 0.059 0.077 0.086 0.263

5 3 13 3 6 3 1 5 7

6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6

10 8 19 8 11 9 1 11 12

46

45

91

15 4 3 1 18 1 7 1 49

6 6 6 0 11 0 17 6 6 58

21 10 9 1 29 1 24 7 6 107

38 8 7 15 19 12 150 9 258

22 6 6 11 6 6 6 6 67

60 14 12 26 25 18 156 15 325

83 7 44 27

11 0 6 0

94 7 49 27

1738 520 85 67 63 265 26 362 42 3 1433

0.360 0.059 0.053 0.044 0.184 0.018 0.251 0.029 0.002

0.400 0.046 0.038 0.038 0.162 0.027 0.191 0.022 0.075

86 19 42 7 63 6 124 11

0.119 0.207 0.070 0.143 0.246 0.093 0.055 0.132

418 320 323 987 221 583 208 477 3537

0.118 0.090 0.091 0.279 0.062 0.165 0.059 0.135

0.171 0.079 0.064 0.186 0.086 0.151 0.143 0.119

194 51 170 335 221 133 152

0.129 0.176 0.053 0.063 0.060 0.094 0.083 0.066

1240 350 1238 1465

0.114 0.032 0.114 0.135

0.099 0.032 0.122 0.149

573 86 342 613

0.043 0.084 0.118 0.039

524

Appendix 2

(cont.) Region

Fu-li

Fu-li Fu Fuguo-li Chengli Civilian fu Fucheng Fucheng proportion population proportion population military overall proportion population population

Huzhou fu Taizhou fu Wenzhou fu Quzhou Ningbo fu Jinghua fu Chuzhou fu total Guangdong Guangzhou fu Shaozhou fu Nanxiong fu Huizhou fu Chaozhou fu Zhaoqing fu Gaozhou fu Lianzhou fu Leizhou fu Qiongzhou fu total Guangxi Guilin fu Liuzhou fu Qingyuan fu Wuzhou fu Nanning fu Xunzhou fu Pingle fu Si’en fu Sicheng fu Tianzhou Zhen’an fu Taiping fu Siming fu Longzhou Jiangzhou Silingzhou total Sichuan Chengdu fu Baoning fu Shunqing fu Kuizhou fu Chongqing fu Xuzhou fu

1202 594 849 778 936 1258 959 10869

0.111 0.055 0.078 0.072 0.086 0.116 0.088

0.110 0.090 0.082 0.049 0.084 0.117 0.067

576 188 284 163 451 217 115 3608

0.032 0.060 0.063 0.074 0.044 0.047 0.087

19 19 19 8 19 10 8 263

1 0 0 1 6 0 6 30

20 19 19 9 25 10 13 293

1249 71 51 175 495 396 164 86 288 434 3409

0.366 0.021 0.015 0.051 0.145 0.116 0.048 0.025 0.084 0.127

0.323 0.028 0.024 0.039 0.124 0.156 0.039 0.027 0.080 0.159

573 36 44 45 300 99 46 36 150 103

0.093 0.153 0.112 0.168 0.107 0.115 0.134 0.154 0.090 0.118

50 8 8 6 29 16 5 6 14 16 159

22 1 1 6 6 6 1 0 6 6 54

72 9 10 12 35 22 6 6 19 22 213

252 205 146 223 9 78 96 15 6

0.245 0.199 0.142 0.217 0.009 0.076 0.093 0.015 0.006

0.397 0.198 0.063 0.205 0.037 0.040 0.050 0.008 0.003

129 7 37 33 2 41 24 6 0

0.099 0.139 0.174 0.135 0.154 0.169 0.153 0.236

26 1 4 5 2 5 2 1 0

46

17 6 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29

43 7 4 6 7 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75

2 2 2 1 16 4

45 1 1 0 6 6

47 3 3 1 21 9

1030 230 60 111 67 380 204

0.174 0.045 0.084 0.051 0.287 0.154

14 10 10 4 91 28

0.143 0.185 0.142 0.190 0.137 0.114

The Number of Li, the Population of Inner Cities and Fu Captials

525

(cont.) Region

Tongchuan fu Meizhou Jiading fu Luzhou Yazhou Yongning Lizhou Mahu fu Wumeng fu Dongchuan fu Usha fu Zhenxiong fu total

Fu-li

65 35 72 100

Fu-li Fu Fuguo-li Chengli Civilian fu Fucheng Fucheng proportion population proportion population military overall proportion population population 0.049 0.026 0.054 0.076

5 21 10 70

0.159 0.122 0.146 0.117

1 3 2 10

42

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 60

1 3 2 10 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 103

Explanation: “Fu-li proportion” refers to the proportion of the number of fu against the province’s number of li, while “fu proportion” refers to the proportion of the fu population against the province’s total population. The population of each fu in a province is shown in Appendix 1. Source: The li data comes from Daming Yitongzhi (Topographic Treaties of the Ming Dynasty) edited in the Tianshun period (1457–1464) Italics【】The marked data comes from Yongle’s “Shuntian fu Records”, Wanli’s “Baoding fu Records” Volume 2, Qianlong’s “Shunde fu Records” Volume 4, Jiajing’s “Guangping fu Records” Volume 6, Jiajing’s “Hejian fu Records” Volume 8, Orthodox “Daimyō fu Records” Volume 2, Hongzhi’s “Yongping fu Records” Volume 1; Jiajing’s “Qingzhou fu Records” Volume 11, Wanli’s “Yanzhou fu Records” Volume 3; Chenghua’s “Piling fu Records” Volume 3; Wanli’s “Huaian fu Records” Volume 3, Hongzhi’s “Huizhou fu Records” Volume 3, Hongzhi’s “Huizhou fu Records” Volume 4, Hongzhi’s “Huizhou fu Records” Volume 4, Hongzhi’s “Huizhou fu Records” Volume 4, Hongzhi’s “Huizhou fu Records” Volume 4, Hongzhi’s “Huizhou fu Records” Volume 4, Hongzhi’s “Huizhou fu Records” Volume 4, Hongzhi’s “Huizhou fu Records” Volume 4, Hongzhi’s “Huizhou fu Records” Volume 4, Hongzhi’s “Huizhou fu Records” Volume 4, “Zhi” Volumes 1–2, Jiajing “Ningguo fu” Volumes 2; Hongzhi “Bamin Tongzhi” Volumes 15–16; Wanli “Nanchang fu” Volumes 5, Zhengde “Ruizhou fu” Volumes 2, Longqing “Linjiang fu” Volumes 3, Hongzhi “Fuzhou fu” Volumes 2, Zhengde “Jianchang fu” Volumes 3, Zhengde “Yuanzhou fu” Volumes 3, Jiajing “Ganzhou fu” Volumes 4–5, Jiajing “Nan’an fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nan’an fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nan’an fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nan’an fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nan’an fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nan’an fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nan’an fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nanzhou fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nanzhou fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nanzhou fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nanzhou fu” Volumes 18; Jiajing “Nanzhou fu” Volumes 18; Jing’s “Hu Guangtu Jing Zhishu”, Wanli’s “Huguang General Zhi”, Jiajing’s “Hanyang fu Zhi” Volume 2, Jiajing’s “Changde fu Zhi” Volume 3, Longqing’s “Yuezhou fu Zhi” Volume 7, Hongzhi’s “Huangzhou fu Zhi” Volume 1, Chenghua’s “Hangzhou fu Zhi” Volume 2, Wanli’s “Shaoxing fu Zhi” Volume 1, Hongzhi’s “Jiaxing fu Zhi” Volumes 8 and 11, Chenghua’s “Huzhou fu Zhi” Volume 4, Wanli’s “Dantu County Zhi” Volume 1.

Appendix 3

The Population of the County Headquarters (excluding Fucheng and Fuguo) and the Urbanization Rate of the Individual Fu in 1393 (Hongwu 26th Year) Population unit: thousand people

Fu name

County Counties Average Total Urban Urban- Overall Urbancapitals with population population civilian ization urban ization capital population rate (1) population rate (2)

Beiping Beiping fu 25 Baoding fu 19 Zhending fu 31 Hejian fu 17 Yongping fu 5 Shunde fu 8 Quangping fu 8 Daming fu 10 total 123 Shandong Jinan fu 29 Dongchang fu 17 Yanzhou fu 26 Qingzhou fu 13 Laizhou fu 6 Dengzhou fu 7 total 98 Shaanxi Xi’an fu 31 Fengxiang fu 7 Hanzhong fu 12 Pingliang fu 9 Gongchang fu 14 Lintao fu 3 Qingyang fu 5 Yan’an fu 18 total 99 Henan

24 17 30 13 5 8 5 10 112

1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.9 1.3 1.3

26 19 30 13 4 8 10 13 122

51 23 32 15 4 12 12 14 162

14.2 6.0 4.5 4.1 5.2 6.8 5.6 4.0 6.2

179 23 37 15 10 12 12 14 301

28.5 6.0 5.2 4.1 8.7 6.8 5.6 4.0 10.3

29 1 26 13 6 7 82

2.1 0.6 1.5 7.5 3.2 5.4 2.4

60 1 40 98 19 38 256

63 1 42 120 27 46 300

5.6 1.3 4.0 6.4 3.2 5.7 5.2

69 7 48 131 33 51 339

5.9 5.5 4.5 6.8 3.8 6.1 5.6

29 7 0 3 6 0 4 8 57

1.5 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5

43 7 0 1 2 0 1 3 58

60 12 1 6 8 6 5 8 105

4.4 5.0 1.9 3.3 3.0 10.9 5.4 1.9 4.0

99 13 7 12 13 11 11 13 179

6.6 5.4 8.5 5.7 4.6 13.2 9.7 2.7 6.0

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_021

527

The Population of the County Headquarters (cont.) Fu name

County Counties Average Total Urban Urban- Overall Urbancapitals with population population civilian ization urban ization capital population rate (1) population rate (2)

Kaifeng fu 49 Henan fu 13 Changde fu 6 Huaiqing fu 5 Weihui fu 5 Nanyang fu 14 Runing fu 11 total 109 Shanxi Taiyuan fu 27 Pingyang fu 34 Luzhou 5 Fenzhou fu 7 Datong fu 10 Zezhou 3 Qinzhou 2 Liaozhou 2 total 92 Jingshinan Yingtian fu 5 Suzhou fu 5 Songjiang fu 3 Changzhou fu 3 Zhenjiang fu 2 Taiping fu 2 Chizhou fu 5 Huizhou fu 5 Ningguo fu 5 Guangde zhou 1 total 36 Jingshibei Xuzhou fu 3 Huai’an fu 11 Yangzhou fu 9 Fengyang fu 17 Chuzhou 2 Luzhou fu 6 Anqing fu 5 Hezhou fu 1 total 94 Jiangxi Nanchang fu 6

39 13 5 5 5 11 8 86

1.8 1.4 1.6 2.5 2.0 0.4 0.4 1.1

71 18 8 13 10 5 3 127

88 28 15 19 13 6 4 173

6.9 4.8 6.1 7.9 8.7 2.2 2.1 5.8

116 33 21 25 18 12 10 235

8.3 5.2 7.9 9.6 11.3 3.6 4.1 7.2

25 33 5 7 3 3 2 2 80

0.9 2.8 4.4 3.0 0.6 2.8 1.0 0.8 1.6

22 94 22 21 2 8 2 2 172

32 107 33 34 7 20 7 5 246

3.7 5.8 5.2 14.0 4.3 4.2 7.5 6.0 5.6

54 113 39 34 13 25 8 5 292

5.7 6.0 5.9 14.0 3.8 5.3 8.4 6.0 6.2

5 5 3 3 2 1 1 5 5 1 31

4.7 7.3 9.8 5.1 7.3 5.8 4.0 1.6 3.0 5.3 6.6

24 37 30 15 15 6 4 8 15 5 158

824 365 42 25 35 19 11 24 22 15 1381

58.8 15.5 3.5 3.2 6.5 6.5 5.5 4.1 4.1 5.3 16.9

844 393 48 25 41 19 17 30 27 15 1457

40.0 16.3 3.9 3.2 7.3 6.5 7.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 16.1

1 11 8 10 1 4 4 0 39

1.3 2.7 1.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 1.7 1.9 1.2

1 29 14 6 0 4 7 0 63

12 43 108 10 2 14 13 5 209

5.8 5.8 13.7 2.4 7.4 3.3 3.1 6.7 6.6

18 54 114 44 5 20 19 5 280

7.8 6.8 13.6 6.9 11.4 4.3 4.4 6.7 7.9

6

3.9

23

62

5.5

73

6.3

528

Appendix 3

(cont.) Fu name

Raozhou fu Guangxin fu Nankang fu Jiujiang fu Jianchang fu Fǔzhou fu Linjiang fu Ji’an fu Ruizhou fu Yuanzhou fu Ganzhou fu Nan’an fu total Huguangnan Changde fu Yuezhou fu Changsha fu Baoqing fu Yongzhou fu Hengzhou fu Chenzhou Chenzhou fu Jingzhou Yongshun Baojing total Huguangbei Huangzhou fu Xiangyang fu Mianyang fu De’an fu Wuchang fu Hanyang fu Jingzhou fu Anlu fu Shizhou fu total Fujian Fuzhou fu Tingzhou fu Shaowu fu Jianning fu Xinghua fu

County Counties Average Total Urban Urban- Overall Urbancapitals with population population civilian ization urban ization capital population rate (1) population rate (2) 5 5 2 4 3 4 2 8 2 3 9 2 61

5 5 2 1 3 4 2 8 2 3 2 2 45

4.8 3.7 3.9 2.3 9.8 9.0 4.5 5.1 3.9 7.0 2.3 3.2 4.3

24 19 8 2 29 36 9 41 8 21 5 6 231

43 29 10 4 48 59 17 72 18 33 23 11 428

4.7 5.9 4.9 5.1 9.4 4.9 3.2 4.2 4.3 8.5 6.4 14.1 5.3

44 30 10 10 50 60 17 75 18 38 29 12 465

4.8 6.0 4.9 9.8 9.6 5.0 3.2 4.3 4.3 9.6 7.5 15.0 5.7

7 3 10 3 8 8 4 6 2 0 0 51

5 2 9 3 7 7 2 5 1 0 0 41

2.5 2.2 2.4 0.7 2.5 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.2

13 4 22 2 18 20 4 11 2 0 0 95

17 7 35 5 23 23 6 16 9 0 0 140

7.1 3.2 6.5 3.3 5.5 7.7 5.1 8.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 6.1

23 13 40 10 29 29 6 21 14

7.8 5.4 7.1 6.3 6.5 9.0 5.1 10.1 12.3

185

7.4

7 11 1 5 9 1 14 4

7 2 1 2 8 1 4 4

3.0 1.3 1.7 1.7 2.1 3.1 2.8 2.5

21 3 2 3 17 3 11 10

36 7 5 5 34 4 18 11

4.8 7.7 6.8 6.4 11.4 8.3 5.0 27.4

42 13 11 5 45 4 35 17

5.4 12.2 12.3 6.4 13.6 8.3 8.6 29.7

52

29

2.2

70

119

6.4

177

8.7

11 5 3 5 1

10 5 3 5 1

3.6 8.6 3.1 10.8 5.8

36 43 9 54 6

74 51 16 69 25

11.7 17.6 6.8 10.0 7.8

96 57 22 80 31

13.4 18.3 8.5 10.7 8.7

529

The Population of the County Headquarters (cont.) Fu name

Yanping fu Quanzhou fu Zhangzhou fu total Zhejiang Hangzhou fu Yanzhou fu Shaoxing fu Jiaxing fu Huzhou fu Taizhou fu Wenzhou fu Quzhou Ningbo fu Jinghua fu Chuzhou fu total Guangdong Guangzhou fu Shaozhou fu Nanxiong fu Huizhou fu Chaozhou fu Zhaoqing fu Gaozhou fu Lianzhou fu Leizhou fu Qiongzhou fu total Guangxi Guilin fu Liuzhou fu Qingyuan fu Wuzhou fu Nanning fu Xunzhou fu Pingle fu Si’en fu Sicheng fu Tianzhou Zhen’an fu Taiping fu Siming fu

County Counties Average Total Urban Urban- Overall Urbancapitals with population population civilian ization urban ization capital population rate (1) population rate (2) 4 6 4 42

4 6 4 38

11.3 4.2 6.2 3.6

45 25 25 243

57 175 34 501

10.2 33.0 7.7 13.5

63 181 40 568

10.8 32.1 8.4 14.2

7 5 6 2 4 4 3 4 4 6 6 58

4 4 6 2 4 4 3 4 4 6 6 47

7.1 4.0 14.0 5.0 3.0 5.7 5.4 4.6 7.2 6.7 3.9 6.2

28 16 84 10 12 23 16 18 29 40 23 300

111 23 128 37 31 42 35 27 48 51 31 563

10.3 6.6 9.6 2.2 2.5 4.2 4.0 5.0 5.2 3.9 4.2 5.1

123 23 133 37 32 42 35 28 54 51 37 593

11.0 6.6 9.7 2.2 2.6 4.0 3.7 5.2 5.4 3.9 4.9 5.3

8 5 1 4 3 8 5 3 2 12 55

5 1 0 2 3 7 5 1 2 8 34

3.7 1.6 2.8 1.4 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.7 3.8 2.6 2.6

18 2 0 3 9 19 10 2 8 21 91

68 10 8 9 38 35 16 8 21 37 250

5.9 9.3 9.7 6.2 8.5 6.2 10.9 8.2 7.3 6.4 6.9

91 11 10 14 44 41 17 8 27 43 303

7.1 10.1 10.6 9.0 9.3 6.9 11.5 8.2 8.7 7.1 7.9

10 11 8 9 3 3 3 3

5 2 1 6 2 3 0 0

3.4 2.0 1.2 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.6 0.5

17 4 1 12 4 5 0 0

43 5 5 17 6 9 2 1

8.3 2.0 5.8 6.5 12.1 17.7 3.8 9.5

60 11 5 18 12 9 2 1

10.6 3.9 5.8 6.8 14.1 17.7 3.8 9.5

530

Appendix 3

(cont.) Fu name

County Counties Average Total Urban Urban- Overall Urbancapitals with population population civilian ization urban ization capital population rate (1) population rate (2)

Longzhou Jiangzhou Silingzhou total 50 Sichuan Chengdu fu 30 Baoning fu 9 Shunqing fu 8 Kuizhou fu 10 Chongqing fu 17 Xuzhou fu 8 Tongchuan fu 6 Meizhou 3 Jiading fu 9 Luzhou 3 Yazhou Yongning Lizhou Mahu fu Wumeng fu Dongchuan fu Usha fu Zhenxiong fu total 103

19

1.8

43

89

5.6

118

6.8

6 1 3 1 11 5 2 0 1 1

2.2 1.0 1.8 0.9 2.0 2.7 1.4 2.4 1.7 2.7

13 1 5 1 22 14 3 0 2 3

16 3 7 2 38 17 4 3 3 12

5.7 4.5 5.4 2.3 7.8 7.2 5.0 7.3 4.0 10.5

60 4 8 2 43 23 4 3 3 12 1

14.6 5.8 6.1 1.9 8.6 8.9 5.0 7.3 4.0 9.2 6.6

0.0

60

3.0

31

63

Description: The data in italics comes from various local records, and the non-italic data is the results of calculation. See Chapter 7 for details on the calculation process. Source of information: (1) Same as Appendix 2. (2) Jiajing “Qingyuan County Records” Volume 1, Kangxi “Jizhou Records” Volume 1, Kangxi “Wuqing County Records” Volume 1, Wanli “Baoding County Records” Volume 1, Kangxi “Jizhou Records” Volume 2, Kangxi “Xingtang County Records” Volume 2, Kangxi “Hengshui County Records” Volume 3; Jiajing “Ninghaizhou Records” Volume 3, Wanli “Fushan County Records” Volume 3; Hongzhi “Jurong County Records” Volume 1; Longqing “Yizhen County Records” Volume 1; Longqing “Yizhen County Records” Volume 1; Longqing “Haizhou Zhi” Volume 1 “Tuli”; Hongzhi “Wujiang Zhi” Volume 2, Wanli “Jiading County Zhi” Volume 1, Jiajing “Jiangyin County Zhi” Volume 2.

Appendix 4

Urban Population and Urbanization Rate of Individual Fu in 1580 (Wanli 8th Year) Population unit: thousand people

Region

Beiping Beiping fu Baoding fu Zhending fu Hejian fu Yongping fu Shunde fu Quangping fu Daming fu total Shandong Jinan fu Dongchang fu Yanzhou fu Qingzhou fu Laizhou fu Dengzhou fu total Shaanxi Xi’an fu Fengxiang fu Hanzhong fu Pingliang fu Gongchang fu Lintao fu Qingyang fu Yan’an fu total Henan Kaifeng fu

Number of county capital County (excluding average fucheng and fuguo)

Population in 1580 County capitals

Prefectural capital

Town number

Town population

Urbanization rate (%)

34.5 5.9 12.7 21.5 5.6 10.8 11.0 7.2 20.5

25 19 31 17 5 8 8 10 123

4 3 4 3 2 3 6 4

187 50 112 48 9 20 32 36 493

1000 10 27 108 16 9 7 2 1179

3 3 0 12

54

1 1 15 35

1 1 30 92

1190 64 139 210 25 30 39 67 1764

29 17 26 13 6 7 98

6 2 4 13 6 9

212 216 215 171 34 66 914

25 19 18 59 24 24 169

7 4 17 7 2 2 39

7 4 17 787 2 2 819

244 239 251 1017 60 92 1902

7.3 28.8 10.2 30.5 3.9 5.8 14.6

34 7 15 9 14 3 5 18 99

3 2 0 1 1 1 1 1

110 17 20 9 14 3 4 20 197

128 16 31 37 38 52 28 30 360

8 6

8 6

2

2

2 18

2 18

246 39 51 49 52 55 32 52 576

7.1 6.4 13.8 6.8 5.5 14.3 10.0 3.6 7.0

50

6

247

151

9

9

407

8.8

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_022

3 3

Urban population

532

Appendix 4

(cont.) Region

Henan fu Changde fu Huaiqing fu Weihui fu Nanyang fu Runing fu total Shanxi Taiyuan fu Pingyang fu Luzhou fu Fenzhou fu Datong fu Zezhou Qinzhou Liaozhou total Jingshinan Yingtian fu Suzhou fu Songjiang fu Changzhou fu Zhenjiang fu Taiping fu Chizhou fu Huizhou fu Ningguo fu Guangde zhou total Jingshibei Xuzhou fu Huai’an fu Yangzhou fu Fengyang fu Chuzhou Luzhou fu Anqing fu Hezhou fu total Jiangxi Nanchang fu

Number of county capital County (excluding average fucheng and fuguo)

Population in 1580 County capitals

Prefectural capital

Town number

Town population

Urban population

Urbanization rate (%)

4

4

9 3 5 2 32

9 3 5 2 32

106 56 76 52 54 45 796

7.7 8.3 7.6 12.8 3.6 4.2 7.5

6 6

6.1 6.2 5.9 14.6 4.6 5.4 8.4 6.0 6.4

13 6 5 5 17 13 109

4 4 7 5 2 1

56 22 34 27 24 17 427

46 34 33 22 25 26 337

27 34 6 7 10 3 2 2 92

2 6 9 6 2 6 2 2

46 192 45 42 12 17 4 3 362

66 39 34 28 34 34 13 7 254

3 1 1

6 6 0 3 1 1

17

17

118 237 79 72 47 52 17 10 633

6 5 4 4 2 2 5 5 5 1 36

10 15 20 10 15 12 12 3 6 11

49 74 125 32 30 13 16 16 30 11 396

500 724 110 19 54 26 38 45 25 19 1559

19 29 18 14 10 5 3 6 6 2 112

38 206 102 28 20 10 6 12 12 4 438

587 1004 337 79 103 49 61 73 67 34 2393

13.7 20.5 13.4 5.0 9.1 8.3 9.2 5.9 6.0 6.0 12.9

3 11 9 17 2 7 5 1 94

4 8 6 2 1 3 5 4

6 90 79 28 2 16 22 1 244

57 100 400 127 12 45 38 12 790

5 18 21 13 2 19 7 7 92

5 18 42 13 2 19 7 7 113

68 208 521 167 16 80 68 20 1148

8.7 8.6 20.2 7.8 14.0 6.1 4.9 11.3 10.5

6

9

54

114

2

4

172

6.5

533

Urban Population and Urbanization Rate (cont.) Region

Raozhou fu Guangxin fu Nankang fu Jiujiang fu Jianchang fu Fǔzhou fu Linjiang fu Ji’an fu Ruizhou fu Yuanzhou fu Ganzhou fu Nan’an fu total Huguangnan Changde fu Yuezhou fu Changsha fu Baoqing fu Yongzhou fu Hengzhou fu Chenzhou Chenzhou fu Jingzhou Yongshun Baojing total Huguangbei Huangzhou fu Xiangyang fu Mianyang fu De’an fu Wuchang fu Hanyang fu Jingzhou fu Anlu zhou Shizhou fu total Fujian Fuzhou fu Tingzhou fu Shaowu fu

Number of county capital County (excluding average fucheng and fuguo)

Population in 1580 County capitals

Prefectural capital

Town number

Town population

Urban population

Urbanization rate (%)

6 6 3 4 4 5 3 8 2 3 11 2 61

9 7 7 7 18 17 8 10 7 13 5 7

51 35 18 10 58 68 21 77 15 40 19 14 480

38 21 4 24 38 45 16 64 20 33 52 11 479

7 5 3 5 7 3 1 4 3 3 4 3 50

114 60 6 10 14 6 52 8 6 6 8 6 300

203 116 27 45 110 119 88 150 41 78 78 31 1259

11.7 12.5 7.3 13.8 11.3 5.2 8.6 4.6 5.0 10.4 9.6 18.7 7.8

7 3 10 4 8 8 4 6 2 0 0 51

11 7 10 2 5 6 6 5 4 0 0

59 14 88 8 38 42 13 28 5 0 0 297

47 25 75 26 24 19 4 28 26 0 0 275

7 4 5 4 5 6 8 1 1

7 4 5 4 5 6 8 1 1

114 44 168 37 68 67 25 56 32

8.5 6.1 7.3 7.3 7.2 10.1 8.5 10.4 13.1

41

41

612

7.9

8 13 1 5 9 1 14 4 0 52

10 24 13 16 7 10 10 8 0

76 59 13 36 57 10 48 33

11 10 0 6 9 3 4

11 10 20 6 9 59 29

333

69 49 31 4 96 4 81 25 21 378

43

144

156 118 64 46 162 73 158 58 21 855

6.0 6.2 9.4 6.7 14.5 43.5 11.5 29.7 3.9 9.3

11 7 3

10 16 4

101 86 13

168 26 16

17 5

34 10

304 122 29

15.2 20.8 8.5

534

Appendix 4

(cont.) Region

Jianning fu Xinghua fu Yanping fu Quanzhou fu Zhangzhou fu total Zhejiang Hangzhou fu Yanzhou fu Shaoxing fu Jiaxing fu Huzhou fu Taizhou fu Wenzhou fu Quzhou Ningbo fu Jinghua fu Chuzhou fu total Guangdong Guangzhou fu Shaozhou fu Nanxiong fu Huizhou fu Chaozhou fu Zhaoqing fu Gaozhou fu Lianzhou fu Leizhou fu Qiongzhou fu total Guangxi Guilin fu Liuzhou fu Qingyuan fu Wuzhou fu Nanning fu Xunzhou fu Pingle fu Si’en fu

Number of county capital County (excluding average fucheng and fuguo)

Population in 1580 County capitals

Prefectural capital

Town number

Town population

6 1 6 6 9 42

10 11 10 12 17

53 11 52 70 74 460

23 47 16 20 41 358

6 4 8

12 8 16

7 47

7 5 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 7 9 58

13 8 26 9 6 10 10 9 13 13 7

56 31 156 47 23 42 35 35 52 85 46 607

385 14 91 107 37 35 35 18 46 20 24 811

14 5 1 7 9 13 5 3 2 12 55

8 6 3 6 7 5 9 5 5 3

45 10 1 14 21 35 45 7 9 27 215

10 11 8 9 5 3 5 3

7 4 4 4 7 5 3 10

41 17 11 28 15 16 3 3

Urban population

Urbanization rate (%)

14 94

89 66 84 90 130 913

13.3 9.9 15.7 5.7 9.8 11.9

11 3 10 9 10 4 1 4 2 4 1 59

46 6 20 111 120 8 2 8 4 8 2 335

487 51 266 265 180 85 72 61 102 112 73 1754

23.5 7.6 10.5 8.5 7.9 4.4 4.1 6.0 5.7 4.7 5.3 8.4

452 35 12 52 80 40 29 20 23 24 766

6 4 2 4 7 9 4 3 3 3 45

26 4 2 4 7 9 4 3 3 3 65

523 49 15 70 108 84 78 30 35 54 1046

17.9 12.1 13.2 9.8 10.0 7.8 12.1 9.8 9.5 8.1 12.6

91 14 11 14 23 16 4 19

3 6 4 3 3 1 3 2

3 6 4 3 3 1 3 2

135 38 26 45 41 33 10 24

11.2 6.5 10.2 7.9 15.6 18.3 9.2 12.0

535

Urban Population and Urbanization Rate (cont.) Region

Sicheng fu Tianzhou Zhen’an fu Taiping fu Siming fu Longzhou Jiangzhou Silingzhou total Sichuan Chengdu fu Baoning fu Shunqing fu Kuizhou fu Chongqing fu Xuzhou fu Tongchuan fu Meizhou Jiading fu Luzhou Yazhou Yongning Lizhou Mahu fu Wumeng fu Dongchuan fu Usha fu Zhenxiong fu total

Number of county capital County (excluding average fucheng and fuguo) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 30 10 8 12 17 10 6 3 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103

6 3 5 2 5 7 4 6 5 7

0

Population in 1580 County capitals

Prefectural capital

Town number

Town population

Urban population

134

192

25

25

61 11 19 11 64 40 12 3 13 9

131 9 7 2 58 25 3 8 5 26 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 279

9 2 1 3 1 7 3 3 5

9 2 1 3 1 7 3 3 5

1

1

3 1

17.5 11.1 7.8 7.5 9.1 10.3 8.3 12.6 9.7 9.7 6.6 0.0 35.0 2.3

35

35

556

10.8

242

351 0 201 21 28 16 123 72 17 14 22 35 3

Urbanization rate (%)

8.9

Description: The population of the industrial and commercial centers of the prefectural capitals and the county headquarters is added to that of the corresponding fu. For example, according to the average annual population growth rate, the total population of Hejian fu in 1580 was only 8,000. After adding the urban population of Tianjin wei city, the population of the prefectural capital increased to 108,000. Although Tianjin wei city is not the same city as Hejian prefectural capital, the former began to play the role of a regional center, and was promoted to Tianjin zhou in 1725 (Yongzheng 3rd year), and to Tianjin fu six years later. similarly, the population data of those large-size towns are also included in the urban population of each fu.

Appendix 5

Changes in the Population of the Individual Fu in the Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasties

Region

Population Population Net decrease in change change population rate%

Population

1630

1650

Beiping Beiping fu 4795 2131 Baoding fu 1385 1176 Zhending fu 1551 1740 Hejian fu 1351 770 Yongping fu 573 659 Shunde fu 362 400 Quangping fu 483 455 Daming fu 1216 1139 total 11715 8471 Shandong Jinan fu 4427 4290 Dongchang fu 1110 1655 Yanzhou fu 3087 4156 Qingzhou fu 3876 3274 Laizhou fu 1756 1872 Dengzhou fu 1845 1944 total 16101 17191 Shaanxi Xi’an fu 4324 2219 Fengxiang fu 792 449 Hanzhong fu 554 42 Pingliang fu 984 1370 Gongchang fu 1323 1607 Lintao fu 578 814

1680

1630–1650

2513 −2664 1386 −209 2113 189 1038 −580 845 87 472 38 537 −28 1343 −77 10246 −3244

1630–1680

1650

1680

−2282 1 563 −312 272 110 54 127 −1469

−343

−343

−3558

−2595

−137 545 1069 −602 116 100 1090

661 858 1668 −294 292 282 3467

−739

−294

2539 −2106 522 −343 54 −512 1664 386 1951 283 1040 236

−1786 −271 −500 680 628 462

5088 1968 4755 3582 2048 2127 19568

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_023

537

Changes in the Population of the Individual Fu (cont.)

Region

Population Population Net decrease in change change population rate%

Population

1630

1650

Qingyang fu 429 551 Yan’an fu 1937 870 total 10923 7922 Henan Kaifeng fu 6376 4942 Henan fu 1860 1223 Changde fu 881 558 Huaiqing fu 1316 729 Weihui fu 526 576 Nanyang fu 2137 2333 Runing fu 1514 2480 total 14609 12840 Shanxi Taiyuan fu 2322 2477 Pingyang fu 4631 2211 Luzhou fu 1624 436 Fenzhou fu 599 466 Datong fu 1383 745 Zezhou 1167 418 Qinzhou 241 124 Liaozhou 204 97 total 12171 6975 Jingshinan Ying Tianfu 5177 2623 Suzhou fu 5909 4087 Songjiang fu 3039 1481 Changzhou fu 1907 1895 Zhenjiang fu 1378 853 Taiping fu 712 589 Chizhou fu 892 944 Huizhou fu 1496 1452

1680

1630–1650

1630–1680

1650

1680

655 121 1035 −1068 9460 −3002

226 −903 −1464

−4028

−3459

5984 −1434 1463 −637 654 −323 854 −587 675 50 2884 196 3067 966 15581 −1769

−392 −397 −227 −462 149 747 1553 972

−2981

−1477

2776 156 2478 −2420 488 −1188 522 −134 892 −637 468 −749 139 −117 109 −107 7872 −5196

454 −2153 −1136 −77 −491 −699 −102 −95 −4299

−5352

−4753

2939 −2554 4579 −1822 1659 −1558 2123 −12 955 −526 659 −124 1130 53 1627 −44

−2238 −1329 −1380 217 −423 −53 238 131

538

Appendix 5

(cont.)

Region

Population Population Net decrease in change change population rate%

Population

1630

1650

Ningguo fu 1349 1228 Guangde zhou 678 205 total 22537 15356 Jingshibei Xuzhou fu 1094 1080 Huai’an fu 3277 2620 Yangzhou fu 3484 2757 Fengyang fu 2949 3738 Chuzhou 143 234 Luzhou fu 1743 1905 Anqing fu 1845 2183 Hezhou fu 218 160 total 14753 14676 Jiangxi Nanchang fu 3324 3540 Raozhou fu 2066 2166 Guangxin fu 1102 1156 Nankang fu 438 459 Jiujiang fu 441 481 Jianchang fu 1153 1210 Fǔzhou fu 2694 2825 Linjiang fu 1221 1280 Ji’an fu 3894 4084 Ruizhou fu 959 1006 Yuanzhou fu 894 938 Ganzhou fu 994 1051 Nan’an fu 201 212 total 19382 20408 Huguangnan Changde fu 2025 922 Yuezhou fu 970 542 Changsha fu 3327 1420 Baoqing fu 696 583

1680

1630–1650

1376 −121 229 −474 17278 −7181

1630–1680

1650

1680

27 −449 −5259

−7234

−5871

−1456

−362

1315 3135 3299 4540 271 2252 2612 183 17608

−14 −658 −727 790 90 162 337 −58 −77

222 −143 −185 1592 128 509 766 −35 2854

1925 879 700 450 511 796 1178 837 1779 566 352 1186 151 11310

216 101 54 21 40 56 131 59 190 47 44 57 12 1026

−1400 −1187 −402 12 70 −357 −1516 −383 −2116 −393 −542 192 −50 −8072

1097 −1103 672 −428 1750 −1907 718 −114

−929 −298 −1577 22

−8345

539

Changes in the Population of the Individual Fu (cont.)

Region

Population Population Net decrease in change change population rate%

Population

1630

1650

Yongzhou fu 1153 831 Hengzhou fu 817 1331 Chenzhou 387 396 Chenzhou fu 694 902 Jingzhou 302 373 Yongshun 144 120 Baojing 32 45 total 10548 7466 Huguangbei Huangzhou fu 3589 1833 Xiangyang fu 4117 713 Mianyang fu 1177 777 De’an fu 1247 695 Wuchang fu 1546 1303 Hanyang fu 232 154 Jingzhou fu 1917 1494 Anlu fu 270 175 Shizhou fu 738 458 total 14832 7602 Fujian Fuzhou fu 2634 2844 Tingzhou fu 696 730 Shaowu fu 367 375 Jianning fu 647 641 Xinghua fu 789 828 Yanping fu 526 523 Quanzhou fu 2065 2230 Zhangzhou fu 1735 1874 total 9458 10044 Zhejiang Hangzhou fu 2441 2556 Yanzhou fu 794 831 Shaozhou fu 2987 3128

1680

1630–1650

1630–1680

1650

1680

979 −323 1555 514 466 9 1008 208 401 72 159 −24 56 13 8861 −3083

−174 738 78 314 100 14 24 −1687

−3899

−2977

2227 −1756 1138 −3404 1079 −400 1001 −552 1582 −243 186 −79 1819 −423 213 −94 558 −280 9803 −7230

−1362 −2980 −98 −246 37 −46 −97 −57 −180 −5029

−7230

−5029

2149 800 484 844 275 585 1652 1280 8069

210 34 8 −5 38 −3 165 138 585

−485 104 117 197 −514 59 −413 −455 −1389

−8

−1867

1828 947 3199

115 37 141

−612 152 213

540

Appendix 5

(cont.)

Region

Population Population Net decrease in change change population rate%

Population

1630

1650

Jiaxing fu 3710 3886 Huzhou fu 2690 2817 Taizhou fu 2264 2371 Wenzhou fu 2058 2155 Quzhou 1200 1257 Ningbo fu 2112 2212 Jinghua fu 2862 2997 Chuzhou fu 1633 1710 total 24751 25919 Guangdong Guangzhou fu 3660 3936 Shaozhou fu 580 673 Nanxiong fu 120 121 Huizhou fu 1058 1224 Chaozhou fu 1357 1535 Zhaoqing fu 1255 1360 Gaozhou fu 958 1184 Lianzhou fu 416 427 Leizhou fu 390 407 Qiongzhou fu 691 695 total 10484 11563 Guangxi Guilin fu 1396 346 Liuzhou fu 689 525 Qingyuan fu 213 369 Wuzhou fu 700 726 Nanning fu 168 413 Xunzhou fu 169 264 Pingle fu 26 391 Si’en fu 139 243 Sicheng fu 314 143 Tianzhou 77 84 Zhen’an fu 113 186

1680

1630–1650

1630–1680

1604 1468 1380 1004 834 1110 1269 534 15175

175 127 107 97 57 100 135 77 1168

−2107 −1222 −884 −1055 −366 −1002 −1593 −1099 −9576

4498 835 126 1555 1756 1497 1504 514 419 707 13411

276 94 1 167 178 105 227 11 17 4 1080

838 255 6 497 399 242 546 98 29 16 2927

390 −1050 592 −164 442 156 818 26 498 245 321 95 427 365 393 104 270 −171 84 7 181 73

−1006 −97 229 118 330 152 401 254 −44 7 68

1650

1680

−9941

541

Changes in the Population of the Individual Fu (cont.)

Region

1630 Taiping fu Siming fu Longzhou Jiangzhou Silingzhou total Sichuan Chengdu fu Baoning fu Shunqing fu Kuizhou fu Chongqing fu Xuzhou fu Tongchuan fu Meizhou Jiading fu Luzhou Yazhou Yongning Lizhou Mahu fu Wumeng fu Dongchuan fu Usha fu Zhenxiong fu total Guizhou Xuanwei si, Guizhou Weiqing wei Pingba wei Anzhuang wei Annan wei

Population Population Net decrease in change change population rate%

Population

1650

173 10 7 10 7 4207

206 24 13 16 13 3964

1511 246 460 266 1757 907 270 147 297 475 47 52 10 51 45 45 49 29 6665

1680 233 19 16 19 16 4719

1630–1650

1630–1680

1650

1680

33 14 6 6 6 −249

60 9 9 9 9 508

−1385

−1147

60 17 30 28 74 22 23 6 22 9 25 81 33 74 109 66 32 32 744

71 −1451 20 −229 35 −430 32 −238 87 −1683 26 −884 27 −247 7 −141 26 −275 11 −466 28 −23 95 29 38 23 81 23 120 64 72 20 33 −17 33 3 842 −5921

−1440 −226 −425 −234 −1670 −881 −243 −140 −271 −464 −19 43 28 30 75 27 −16 4 −5823

−6083

−6029

485

581

759

96

274

18 35 86 70

38 38 94 74

44 44 108 80

20 3 7 4

26 9 22 10

542

Appendix 5

(cont.)

Region

Population Population Net decrease in change change population rate%

Population

1630 Pu’an wei 79 Bijie wei 70 Chishui wei 87 Puding wei 173 Xinglong wei 33 Duyun and 171 Qingping Pingyue wei 81 Xintian wei 73 Longliwei 43 Pingxi wei 55 130 Zhenyuan, Pianqiao, Qinglang Wukai wei 194 Banzhou 549 xuanweisi Sinan xuanweisi 119 183 Sizhou xuanweisi total 2735 Yunnan Yunnan fu 466 Qujing fu 202 Xundian fu 21 Lin’an fu 458 Chengjiang fu 174 Guangxi fu 64 Quangnan fu 118 Yuanjiang fu 65 Chuxiong fu 168 Zhelediansi 19 Yao’an fu 50

1650

1680

1630–1650

1630–1680

98 60 74 190 50 201

134 53 60 218 85 262

19 −11 −13 17 16 31

55 −17 −27 45 52 91

60 81 46 82 168

35 97 55 72 249

−20 7 3 27 38

−46 24 12 17 119

203 611

219 718

9 62

25 169

192 187

335 215

72 5

216 32

3129

3842

393

1107

518 217 24 516 197 71 131 73 190 22 58

614 241 29 618 237 83 154 87 229 26 72

52 15 3 58 23 7 13 8 22 2 8

148 39 8 160 63 19 36 22 62 6 22

1650

−44

1680

−48

543

Changes in the Population of the Individual Fu (cont.)

Region

Population Population Net decrease in change change population rate%

Population

1630 Wuding fu 77 Jingdong fu 102 Dali fu 379 Heqing fu 117 Lijiang fu 176 Menghua fu 70 Shunning fu 34 Mengding fu 55 Mengmian sidi 22 Dahou si 26 Jinchi si 232 Mangshi si 16 Zhenkang zhou 12 Wandian zhou 15 Ganya si 11 Nandian si 11 Longchuan fu 13 Cheli si 171 Weiyuan fu 34 total 3378 Northeast region Liaodong fu 3844 Nurgan dusi 1288 Mongolia Remaining tribes of Beiyuan The three wei of Wuliangha Horqin Tartar total 908

1650 89 104 416 128 188 74 39 63 25 29 258 18 14 16 13 11 15 192 38 3745

1680 110 108 478 145 209 80 47 76 30 34 302 21 16 17 16 13 19 230 45 4384

1630–1650

1630–1680

12 2 37 10 12 4 5 8 3 3 26 2 2 1 2 1 2 22 4 367

33 6 99 28 33 10 13 21 8 7 70 4 4 2 5 2 5 59 12 1006

232 908

300 −3613 1023 −380

−3544 −265

945

1003

37

95

1650

1680

−3613 −380

−3544 −265

544

Appendix 5

(cont.)

Region

Population Population Net decrease in change change population rate%

Population

1630 Beibian jun wei (Northern Military Guard) Beiping 50 xingdusi Wanquan and 750 other wei Dongsheng and 55 other wei Shaanxi dusi Ningxia 725 Taozhou wei 89 Minzhou wei 265 total 1080 Shaanxi xingdusi The three wei of 500 Ganzhou Shandan wei 68 Yongchang wei 78 Liangzhou wei 312 Linhe wei 98 Zhuanglang wei 171 Xining wei 186 total 1435 Xinjiang region Arui wei Ili Baliq 263 Dughlat 228 total 835 Sichuan dusi Songpan wei 76 Longzhou wei 76

1650

1680

1630–1650

1630–1680

50

55

0

5

759

857

9

107

57

61

2

6

811 108 310 1229

1065 125 394 1584

86 18 45 149

340 36 129 504

518

683

18

183

72 80 354 106 138 215 1482

85 94 448 135 175 277 1897

4 2 42 8 −33 28 47

17 16 136 37 4 91 462

28 159 247 434

34 190 295 519

28 −104 19 −56

34 −73 67 29

28 30

31 35

−47 −46

−45 −41

1650

−104

1680

−73

545

Changes in the Population of the Individual Fu (cont.)

Region

1630 Diexi suo Tianquan zhaotaosi total Sichuan xingdusi Tibet Taiwan

Population Population Net decrease in change change population rate%

Population

1650

1680

1630–1650

1630–1680

11 22

4 9

5 10

−7 −13

−6 −12

184 365

71 572

81 626

−112 206

−103 261

917 100

936 134

1035 134

19 34

118 34

1650

−112

1680

−103

Description: The population numbers of Jiangxi, Fujian, and Zhejiang provinces in 1650 are actually from 1644, and are expressed in italics in the table. 343,000 people of Beiping fu were Manchurain immigrants.

Appendix 6

Population of the Individual Fu from 1393 to 1953 Unit: thousand people

Region Beiping Beiping fu Baoding fu Zhending fu Hejian fu Yongping fu Shunde fu Quangping fu Daming fu total Shandong Jinan fu Dongchang fu Yanzhou fu Qingzhou fu Laizhou fu Dengzhou fu total Shaanxi Xi’an fu Fengxiang fu Hanzhong fu Pingliang fu Gongchang fu Lintao fu Qingyang fu Yan’an fu total Henan Kaifeng fu

1393

1580

1630

1650

1680

1776

1820

1953

630 380 717 380 109 170 210 340 2936

3451 4795 2338 2756 4666 5562 10065 1074 1385 1325 1562 2644 3152 4558 1094 1551 1782 2101 3557 4240 7473 977 1351 770 1038 2698 3216 7836 444 573 730 860 1456 1736 3332 282 362 400 472 799 952 1290 360 483 515 607 1028 1225 2011 929 1216 1239 1461 2473 2948 4003 8611 11715 9099 10856 19321 23031 40568

1163 127 1065 1930 870 838 6039

3332 4427 4290 5088 6946 8011 11275 831 1110 1655 1968 2824 3332 3950 2466 3087 4156 4755 7569 9366 13912 3337 3876 3274 3582 4720 5356 7458 1512 1756 1872 2048 2928 3374 5967 1588 1845 1944 2127 2893 3415 5435 13066 16101 17191 19568 27880 32854 47997

1492 243 80 212 285 85 109 492 2998

3455 4324 2219 618 792 449 368 554 42 712 984 1370 957 1323 1607 384 578 814 321 429 551 1451 1937 870 8266 10923 7922

2539 4639 6102 8390 522 1000 1348 1552 54 851 3009 3834 1664 3100 3437 1976 1951 3532 3940 4392 1040 2235 2495 2086 655 1141 1273 717 1035 1475 1671 2127 9460 17973 23275 25074

1395

4635

5847

6376

4828

8577 10225 16528

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_024

547

Population of the Individual Fu from 1393 to 1953 (cont.)

Region Henan fu Changde fu Huaiqing fu Weihui fu Nanyang fu Runing fu total Shanxi Taiyuan fu Pingyang fu Luzhou fu Fenzhou fu Datong fu Zezhou Qinzhou Liaozhou total Jingshinan Ying Tianfu Suzhou fu Songjiang fu Changzhou fu Zhenjiang fu Taiping fu Chizhou fu Huizhou fu Ningguo fu Guangde zhou total Jingshibei Xuzhou fu Huai’an fu Yangzhou fu Fengyang fu Chuzhou Luzhou fu

1393 637 261 262 161 324 243 3283 945 1885 661 244 335 475 98 83 4726 2107 2405 1237 776 561 290 216 609 549 276 9026 230 794 844 635 44 464

1580

1630

1650

1680

1776

1820

1953

1379 1860 1223 1463 2046 2446 4113 676 881 613 719 1194 1503 2599 1010 1316 869 1018 1508 1803 1610 404 526 576 675 1000 1176 1228 1500 2137 2333 2884 4231 5044 8450 1063 1514 2480 3067 4289 5006 7571 10667 14609 12922 15673 22845 27203 42099 1921 2322 2477 3831 4631 2211 1343 1624 436 496 599 466 1025 1383 745 965 1167 418 199 241 124 169 204 97 9950 12171 6975

2776 4083 4664 5025 2478 4152 5035 2324 488 789 941 1253 522 784 904 742 892 1187 1295 2261 468 755 900 1110 139 224 267 341 109 178 213 251 7872 12152 14219 13307

4282 5177 2623 2939 4312 5709 3045 4888 5909 4087 4579 6528 7680 4325 2514 3039 1481 1659 2277 2632 8232 1577 1907 1895 2123 3115 3896 4423 1140 1378 853 955 1402 1738 1879 589 712 589 659 1182 1479 1159 661 892 944 1130 2145 2755 972 1238 1496 1452 1627 2169 2475 949 1116 1349 1228 1376 2662 3433 1420 561 678 205 229 431 551 405 18567 22537 15356 17278 26223 32348 26810 787 2430 2583 2133 112 1318

1094 3277 3484 2949 143 1743

1080 2620 2757 3738 234 1905

1315 3135 3299 4540 271 2252

1929 2201 3620 4687 5395 9925 8177 10184 12048 7987 9903 15203 482 600 700 4000 4981 5721

548

Appendix 6

(cont.)

Region Anqing fu Hezhou fu total Jiangxi Nanchang fu Raozhou fu Guangxin fu Nankang fu Jiujiang fu Jianchang fu Fǔzhou fu Linjiang fu Ji’an fu Ruizhou fu Yuanzhou fu Ganzhou fu Nan’an fu total Huguangnan Changde fu Yuezhou fu Changsha fu Baoqing fu Yongzhou fu Hengzhou fu Chenzhou Chenzhou fu Jingzhou Yongshun Baojing total Huguangbei Huangzhou fu Xiangyang fu Mianyang fu De’an fu

1393

1580

1630

1650

1680

1776

1820

1953

447 77 3535

1368 1845 2183 2612 4464 5463 3131 175 218 160 183 338 428 696 10907 14753 14676 17608 32064 39155 51044

1147 924 493 196 102 516 1205 546 1742 429 400 386 78 8164

2656 3324 3540 1925 3136 3755 2682 1743 2066 2166 879 1432 1831 1775 930 1102 1156 700 1141 1485 1537 370 438 459 450 734 967 621 324 441 481 511 998 1299 712 973 1153 1210 796 1157 1314 453 2273 2694 2825 1175 1479 1573 1077 1030 1221 1280 837 1106 1202 659 3286 3894 4084 1779 2685 3104 1807 809 959 1006 566 879 1030 578 755 894 938 331 582 722 1327 814 994 1051 760 2388 3391 2632 165 201 212 151 474 673 700 16129 19382 20408 10860 18192 22346 16561

293 235 570 165 444 317 110 213 117 35 8 2507

1347 2025 922 1097 1911 2360 4930 719 970 542 672 1338 1757 1913 2293 3327 1420 1750 3419 4453 9946 514 696 583 718 1403 1825 4405 943 1153 831 979 1658 2020 3645 669 817 1331 1555 2559 3082 4036 297 387 396 466 781 946 1167 541 694 902 1008 1437 1615 2229 247 302 373 401 505 537 541 107 144 120 159 386 555 708 24 32 45 56 109 142 318 7701 10548 7466 8861 15506 19292 33839

773 103 88 70

2596 1891 681 679

3589 4117 1177 1247

1833 713 777 695

2227 1138 1079 1001

3594 2059 1742 1615

4284 2583 2075 1926

5204 4427 1691 2644

549

Population of the Individual Fu from 1393 to 1953 (cont.)

Region Wuchang fu Hanyang fu Jingzhou fu Anlu fu Shizhou fu total Fujian Fuzhou fu Tingzhou fu Shaowu fu Jianning fu Xinghua fu Yanping fu Quanzhou fu Zhangzhou fu total Zhejiang Hangzhou fu Yanzhou fu Shaozhou fu Jiaxing fu Huzhou fu Taizhou fu Wenzhou fu Quzhou Ningbo fu Jinghua fu Chuzhou fu total Guangdong Guangzhou fu Shaozhou fu Nanxiong fu Huizhou fu Chaozhou fu Zhaoqing fu

1393

1580

1630

1650

1776

1820

1953

333 50 404 58 155 2034

1118 1546 168 232 1380 1917 195 270 531 738 9239 14832

718 311 253 744 353 580 563 473 3995

2002 2634 2844 2149 3004 3352 3806 587 696 730 800 1265 1494 1173 339 367 375 484 603 638 272 666 647 641 844 1125 1228 772 666 789 828 275 445 531 1159 537 526 523 585 781 853 692 1570 2065 2230 1652 2523 2932 3163 1319 1735 1874 1280 2066 2463 2002 7686 9458 10044 8069 11812 13491 13039

1118 355 1368 1658 1203 1037 943 537 990 1280 748 11237

2070 670 2533 3131 2270 1920 1746 1013 1800 2415 1385 20952

2441 794 2987 3710 2690 2264 2058 1200 2112 2862 1633 24751

1275 106 90 160 468 589

2930 405 113 710 1084 1070

3660 580 120 1058 1357 1255

1303 154 1494 175 458 7602

1680

1582 2554 3044 3357 186 301 359 1850 1819 3080 3758 5710 213 344 410 752 558 884 1043 1739 9803 16173 19482 27374

2556 1828 2682 831 947 1274 3128 3199 4265 3886 1604 2353 2817 1468 2153 2371 1380 2227 2155 1004 1620 1257 834 1020 2212 1110 1861 2997 1269 2048 1710 534 862 25919 15175 22365 3936 673 121 1224 1535 1360

4498 835 126 1555 1756 1497

5670 963 176 2225 2651 2182

3197 1461 5392 2805 2568 2774 2017 1141 2356 2550 1074 27335

2128 873 3713 1550 1392 2675 3273 1158 2264 2311 1357 22694

6305 1028 205 2622 3202 2593

8879 1165 334 4372 5849 4461

550

Appendix 6

(cont.)

Region Gaozhou fu Lianzhou fu Leizhou fu Qiongzhou fu total Guangxi Guilin fu Liuzhou fu Qingyuan fu Wuzhou fu Nanning fu Xunzhou fu Pingle fu Si’en fu Sicheng fu Tianzhou Zhen’an fu Taiping fu Siming fu Longzhou Jiangzhou Silingzhou total Sichuan Chengdu fu Baoning fu Shunqing fu Kuizhou fu Chongqing fu Xuzhou fu Tongchuan fu Meizhou Jiading fu Luzhou Yazhou Yongning

1393

1580

1630

1650

1680

1776

1820

1953

145 97 308 602 3840

643 958 1184 1504 2043 2351 3359 306 416 427 514 830 1034 2007 371 390 407 419 585 682 1322 671 691 695 707 1120 1383 2672 8303 10484 11563 13411 18445 21405 34419

570 276 82 271 86 65 10 58 131 32 47 98 4 3 4 3 1740

1156 1396 346 390 600 731 1255 568 689 525 592 1015 1300 2455 174 213 369 442 649 774 1295 573 700 726 818 1385 1763 3658 146 168 413 498 789 974 1771 138 169 264 321 543 691 1737 21 26 391 427 689 858 1633 116 139 243 393 599 727 1143 261 314 143 270 388 458 786 64 77 84 84 129 157 497 94 113 186 181 281 344 632 153 173 206 233 333 392 395 9 10 24 19 27 32 142 6 7 13 16 21 24 136 8 10 16 19 27 32 116 6 7 13 16 21 24 36 3492 4207 3964 4719 7496 9281 17686

414 74 135 97 502 259 77 42 85 136 17 15

1150 191 355 215 1349 696 207 113 228 365 38 40

1511 246 460 266 1757 907 270 147 297 475 47 52

60 17 30 28 74 22 23 6 22 9 25 81

71 20 35 32 87 26 27 7 26 11 28 95

3065 858 1520 1402 3740 1144 1163 318 1106 496 185 160

4330 11824 1306 4722 2200 6318 2044 5979 5077 13874 1556 4079 1802 6769 424 855 1522 3672 735 2365 235 512 203 716

551

Population of the Individual Fu from 1393 to 1953 (cont.)

Region Lizhou Mahu fu Wumeng fu Dongchuan fu Usha fu Zhenxiong fu total Guizhou Xuanwei si, Guizhou Weiqing wei Pingba wei Anzhuang wei Annan wei Pu’an wei Bijie wei Chishui wei Puding wei Xinglong wei Duyun and Qingping Pingyue wei Xintian wei Longliwei Pingxi wei Zhenyuan, Pianqiao, Qinglang Wukai wei Banzhou xuanweisi Sinan xuanweisi Sizhou xuanweisi total Yunnan Yunnan fu Qujing fu Xundian fu

1393

1580

1630

1650

1680

1776

1820

1953

3.2 25 22 22 39 22 1986.2

8 44 39 39 47 27 5151

10 51 45 45 49 29 6665

33 74 109 66 32 32 744

38 65 83 182 81 157 213 481 120 239 328 859 72 186 288 768 33 78 116 586 33 221 303 796 842 16103 22765 65358

239

418

485

581

759

1113

1220

3208

7 17 42 39 39 39 48 85 33 66

30 30 74 62 68 62 77 149 30 145

44 35 86 70 79 70 87 173 29 179

38 38 94 74 98 60 74 190 50 201

44 44 108 80 134 53 60 218 85 262

64 64 158 103 197 78 86 320 124 384

83 83 206 153 293 116 125 416 148 500

156 128 318 435 785 307 169 658 160 912

43 35 20 86 72

69 61 35 86 117

78 71 41 86 133

60 81 46 82 168

35 97 55 72 249

52 142 81 106 365

68 179 102 126 435

116 137 93 170 584

57 270 96 65 1415

170 473 114 147 2417

228 549 119 183 2827

203 611 192 187 3129

219 718 335 215 3842

282 1053 491 315 5578

336 728 1369 3008 639 1151 410 909 7007 14132

132 87 5

357 169 16

466 202 21

518 217 24

614 241 29

1011 339 51

1334 528 80

1519 1561 236

552

Appendix 6

(cont.)

Region Lin’an fu Chengjiang fu Guangxi fu Quangnan fu Yuanjiang fu Chuxiong fu Zhelediansi Yao’an fu Wuding fu Jingdong fu Dali fu Heqing fu Lijiang fu Yongning fu Beishengzhou Menghua fu Shunning fu Mengding fu Mengmian sidi Dahou si Jinchi si Mangshi si Zhenkang zhou Wandian zhou Ganya si Nandian si Longchuan fu Cheli si Weiyuan fu total Northeast region Liaodong fu Nurgan dusi Mongolia Remaining tribes of Beiyuan

1393 111 40 19 33 17 38 5 9 14 78 126 33 78 3 9 36 7 12 5 8 67 5 3 8 2 5 3 42 8 1048 500 500 150

1580

1630

1650

1680

1776

1820

1953

340 458 516 618 1097 1427 2291 128 174 197 237 430 565 502 49 64 71 83 135 191 608 90 118 131 154 258 327 513 49 65 73 87 150 193 284 123 168 190 229 418 563 785 15 19 22 26 45 61 85 35 50 58 72 145 199 289 54 77 89 110 219 311 405 96 102 104 108 120 126 229 300 379 416 478 746 748 937 62 73 78 86 119 138 209 148 176 188 209 290 337 509 8 10 11 13 21 28 75 26 35 39 46 79 108 285 61 70 74 80 105 128 135 24 34 39 47 90 120 283 40 55 63 76 141 187 444 16 22 25 30 56 74 175 20 26 29 34 55 73 172 179 232 258 302 499 756 1311 13 16 18 21 33 47 101 9 12 14 16 29 83 179 13 15 16 17 23 32 69 8 11 13 16 31 42 66 9 11 11 13 17 23 36 10 13 15 19 34 44 71 127 171 192 230 406 527 624 25 34 38 45 81 106 125 2617 3378 3745 4384 7271 9506 15113 2500 1055

3844 1288

471 908

610 1023

610 402

1757 735

553

Population of the Individual Fu from 1393 to 1953 (cont.)

Region 【】   The three wei of

Wuliangha Horqin Tartar total Beibian jun wei (Northern Military Guard) Beiping xingdusi Wanquan and other wei Dongsheng and other wei Shaanxi dusi Ningxia Taozhou wei Minzhou wei total The three wei of Ganzhou Shandan wei Yongchang wei Liangzhou wei Linhe wei Zhuanglang wei Xining wei total Xinjiang region Arui wei Ili Baliq Dughlat total Sichuan dusi Songpan wei Longzhou wei Diexi suo

1393

1580

1630

1650

1680

1776

1820

1953

100 10 100 360

766

800

907

935

1132

1349

530 330

50 702

50 750

50 759

55 857

67 1039

80 1238

75

50

55

57

61

74

88

84 28 40 152 56

460 70 178 708 315

725 89 265 1080 500

811 108 310 1229 518

1065 125 394 1584 683

1533 222 637 2392 1102

1710 285 818 2813 1229

1057 171 493 1721 702

21 24 48 15 26 25 215

59 68 210 66 115 122 955

68 78 312 98 171 186 1435

72 80 354 106 138 215 1482

85 94 448 135 175 277 1897

113 125 723 218 282 447 3010

127 139 807 244 315 497 3358

180 126 689 220 639 879 3435

70 150 80 300

0 415 221 636

545 290 835

72 114 325 511

72 134 383 589

75 300 562 937

78 434 671 1183

37 37 5

65 65 9

76 76 11

28 143 15

31 156 17

41 208 22

52 270 28

554

Appendix 6

(cont.)

Region Tianquan zhaotaosi total Sichuan xingdusi Tibet Taiwan

1393 11 90 178 800 120

1580 19 159 314 800 120

1630 22 184 365 800 120

1650 30 217 572 1035 134

1680 33 237 626 1035 134

1776 44 315 835 1140 900

1820 56 406 1045 1190 1787

1953

Appendix 7

Population of Individual Fu from 1680 to 1953 Area unit: square kilometers, population unit: thousand people

Fu Jiangsu Jiangning fu Yangzhou fu Tongzhou Haimen ting Haizhou Xuzhou fu Huai’an fu Suzhou fu Songjiang fu Zhenjiang fu Changzhou fu Taicang zhou total Anhui Guangde zhou Ningguo fu Chizhou fu Taiping fu Huizhou fu Anqing fu Luzhou fu Yingzhou fu Fengyang fu Sizhou Chuzhou Hezhou fu Liu’an fu total

Area

1680

1776

1820

1851

1880

1910

1953

8239 2686 3941 5252 6225 1659 2045 3045 16027 2904 5157 6663 7981 5996 5673 6316 6733 1019 1809 2573 2912 3296 3677 4365 1068 321 570 720 791 924 1123 1367 10132 704 1033 1226 1372 1523 1700 2606 16429 2014 2954 3370 3698 4009 4341 5543 19277 1793 2630 3000 3292 3575 3879 5396 7111 3655 5111 5908 6543 2367 2528 3132 4171 1660 2277 2632 2915 2552 2405 8231 4636 1290 1770 2195 2484 729 1423 1879 7540 2270 3115 3896 4409 1491 2318 4423 2423 998 1423 1772 1971 1375 1243 1194 103786 21313 31790 39207 44593 29496 32355 47497 3267 230 433 551 643 79 279 405 11262 1360 2581 3433 4000 853 1052 1420 9854 1165 2212 2755 3220 505 729 972 3462 659 1182 1479 1730 542 860 1159 11802 1627 2169 2475 2715 684 823 949 14661 2567 4387 5463 6400 2817 2849 3118 14332 1667 2849 3548 4165 3472 3622 4393 22617 1794 3186 3968 4670 5310 6075 7369 24027 1970 3498 4356 5113 3841 4779 5797 11384 731 1299 1569 1842 1317 1739 2109 4511 271 481 599 704 308 486 628 2672 183 338 428 502 551 607 696 9852 648 1151 1433 1682 1113 1297 1573 143703 14872 25766 32057 37386 21392 25197 30588

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_025

556

Appendix 7

(cont.)

Fu Zhejiang Hangzhou fu Jiaxing fu Huzhou fu Yanzhou fu Shaoxing fu Ningbo fu Chuzhou fu Quzhou fu Jinghua fu Wenzhou fu Taizhou fu total Jiangxi Nanchang fu Nankang fu Jiujiang fu Ruizhou fu Raozhou fu Guangxin fu Yuanzhou fu Linjiang fu Ji’an fu Jianchang fu Fǔzhou fu Nan’an fu Ningdu Ganzhou fu total Hunan Changsha fu Hengzhou fu Baoqing fu Yuezhou fu Changde fu Lizhou

Area

1680

1776

1820

1851

1880

1910

1953

7509 1828 2682 3197 3721 805 1201 2128 3271 1604 2353 2805 3178 1158 1306 1550 6200 1467 2152 2568 2989 767 1130 1392 8584 948 1276 1461 1019 513 614 873 10905 3712 4205 5392 6544 2671 2814 3260 6309 1110 1861 2356 2742 1836 2044 2264 18346 534 862 1074 1298 922 1050 1339 8890 834 1020 1141 1225 703 934 1158 9820 1269 2048 2550 3082 2003 2350 2950 11371 1025 1655 2017 2233 2506 2804 3273 10800 1371 2192 2774 3108 2119 2321 2638 102005 15702 22306 27335 31139 16029 18490 22825 22019 1924 3136 3755 4233 1963 2164 2683 5239 449 732 967 1100 499 546 621 6364 511 999 1299 1508 532 600 712 5743 539 879 1030 1134 405 464 578 15739 878 1431 1831 2064 1326 1522 1775 13323 700 1141 1485 1746 1252 1410 1537 8498 352 619 722 816 704 817 1327 5442 839 1108 1202 1326 545 589 659 24429 1778 2684 3104 3426 1548 1852 1860 8230 796 1157 1314 1427 493 539 453 10648 1173 1476 1577 1628 1069 1192 1077 6922 359 569 673 784 607 663 700 8354 527 818 878 911 650 711 616 23684 1333 2071 2513 2708 1723 1892 2016 164634 12159 18820 22350 24811 13316 14961 16614 42304 17014 22623 12280 11986 14966

1836 1117 707 658 636 504

3419 1837 1316 1226 1066 845

4453 2288 1712 1596 1270 1090

5324 2754 2184 1953 1319 1327

6332 2373 2290 1236 1515 1606

7577 2699 2997 1479 1798 1961

9946 3241 4405 1913 2228 2519

557

Population of Individual Fu from 1680 to 1953 (cont.)

Fu Yongzhou fu Chenzhou Guiyang fu Yongshun fu Ganzhou ting Fenghuang ting Yongsui ting Huangzhou ting Jingzhou Chenzhou fu Yuanzhou fu total Hubei Hanyang fu Huangzhou fu Wuchang fu De’an fu Jingzhou fu Anlu fu Jingmen fu Yichang fu Shinan fu Xiangyang fu Yunyang fu total Fujian Funing fu Fuzhou fu Jianning fu Shaowu fu Tingzhou fu Yanping fu Longyan fu Yongchun fu Xinghua fu Quanzhou fu

Area

1680

1776

1820

1851

1880

1910

1953

22277 12908 6855 13158 1062 1745 1108 1508 10040 12763 8048 30851

837 1404 1710 1957 2229 2551 3112 466 781 946 1088 900 1005 1167 431 722 794 843 697 740 795 255 498 716 783 759 813 890 19 28 36 29 52 62 104 40 59 77 62 111 133 179 40 59 76 61 110 132 139 31 45 58 47 84 100 134 401 505 537 560 508 523 541 488 695 793 897 1015 1086 1189 386 550 600 624 645 663 724 8850 15055 18752 21812 22512 26320 33226

14330 17515 18860 12646 15169 12529 8111 22228 17535 19807 24992 183722

1914 3090 3683 4098 2977 3544 4545 1882 3038 3621 4168 2930 3411 4227 1582 2554 3044 3445 2244 2646 3350 696 1124 1340 1516 1400 1583 1887 928 1571 1914 2200 2164 2513 3114 566 914 1089 1211 1366 1553 1868 234 378 458 525 596 680 821 413 666 830 969 1120 1300 1611 483 779 920 1040 1161 1301 1532 721 1343 1672 1952 1812 2179 2700 384 716 911 1063 1196 1367 1798 9804 16173 19482 22187 18966 22077 27453

9067 15291 17359 8395 19544 15055 5875 5926 3691 8747

452 1696 844 484 799 586 152 217 276 1251

632 2372 1125 603 1265 781 283 405 445 2118

763 2589 1228 638 1494 853 332 483 531 2449

868 2749 1304 663 1674 906 370 544 599 2703

960 2393 667 235 1043 565 224 381 1002 2384

1020 2540 708 250 1099 600 228 405 1064 2543

1111 2768 772 272 1211 654 265 441 1159 2752

558

Appendix 7

(cont.)

Fu Zhangzhou fu Taiwan fu total Guangdong Guangzhou fu Zhaoqing fu Luoding zhou Fogang ting Huizhou fu Chaozhou fu Jiaying fu Shaozhou fu Nanxiong zhou Lianzhou Lianshan ting Gaozhou fu Leizhou fu Lianzhou fu Qiongzhou fu total Guangxi Guilin fu Liuzhou fu Qingyuan fu Si’en fu Sicheng fu Pingle fu Wuzhou fu Xunzhou fu Nanning fu Taiping fu Zhen’an fu Yulin zhou total Yunnan Yunnan fu Chengjiang fu

Area 12668 36072 157690

1680

1776

1820

1851

1880

1910

1953

1326 2850 3398 3830 1649 1761 1739 134 900 1787 2197 2664 3253 7591 8216 13779 16545 18407 14167 15471 20735

28785 4205 5293 5879 6361 6847 7390 8243 25310 1164 1691 2022 2303 2601 2950 3534 6934 338 491 571 639 711 793 927 924 38 55 65 73 82 93 110 32362 1034 1503 1830 2116 2425 2791 3415 15091 1429 2158 2661 3110 3599 4185 5196 10675 828 1215 1333 1393 1451 1514 1609 17568 826 963 1028 1058 1088 1119 1165 4446 126 176 205 230 255 285 334 6047 200 272 302 336 371 411 477 2357 37 50 59 67 75 84 99 15698 1503 2043 2351 2574 2801 3058 3467 8032 418 585 682 780 885 1008 1215 18040 490 830 1034 1207 1395 1620 2007 33898 707 1120 1383 1612 1861 2160 2672 226167 13344 18445 21405 23859 26447 29461 34470 23491 23112 25195 26268 19912 21095 16239 13333 17056 14869 11384 10783 222737

555 424 442 594 208 427 408 389 498 292 211 473 4921

854 724 649 905 299 689 691 658 789 429 281 694 7662

1041 1180 1328 1499 1785 939 1128 1339 1599 2062 774 877 985 1111 1320 1098 1259 1432 1635 1977 327 348 368 390 425 858 997 1147 1326 1633 879 1042 1222 1440 1823 838 993 1164 1372 1737 974 1128 1295 1492 1830 505 566 630 703 824 344 396 453 519 632 884 1048 1229 1449 1834 9461 10962 12592 14535 17884

10586 5049

614 235

1011 430

1334 565

1718 685

858 314

1129 354

1519 502

559

Population of Individual Fu from 1680 to 1953 (cont.)

Fu Chuxiong fu Wudingzhou Qujing fu Guangxi Shunning fu Yongchang fu Tengyue ting Pu’er fu Yuanjiang zhou Zhenyuan zhou Jingdong ting Kaihua fu Quangnan fu Lin’an fu Zhaotong fu Dongchuan fu Dali fu Menghua ting Lijiang fu Yongbei ting total Guizhou Guiyang fu Anshun fu Pingyue zhou Duyun fu Zunyi fu Renhuai ting Sinan fu Shiqian fu Songtao ting Tongren fu Sizhou fu Zhenyuan fu Liping fu Dading fu Xingyi fu

Area

1680

23426 8445 26212 13741 32743 29299 23717 40329 12316 3913 7547 14343 13728 30820 19118 13512 15879 4989 44940 13990 408642

265 115 282 82 180 242 181 274 84 25 108 128 154 484 222 72 476 140 292 58 4713

19153 11704 7666 16193 23129 1386 10312 4498 2292 3810 2693 11742 11571 28796 16861

486 413 196 262 556 48 335 83 63 69 72 333 192 492 201

1776

1820

1851

1880

1910

1953

485 669 838 671 756 974 219 311 368 279 314 405 390 608 814 1019 1287 1797 135 191 249 321 417 608 342 454 534 673 855 1204 390 553 679 796 938 1188 306 409 447 496 553 645 487 633 790 790 526 624 150 193 214 214 226 284 45 60 68 68 69 85 120 126 152 158 178 229 229 298 369 451 570 782 258 327 367 403 445 513 868 1129 1345 1399 1218 1509 460 631 796 981 1216 1655 186 288 388 485 613 856 746 748 929 646 729 937 183 222 232 163 189 234 409 475 523 570 624 718 100 136 170 210 262 360 7949 10360 12675 11645 13468 17628 713 606 287 384 815 70 492 122 92 101 106 489 282 722 295

920 788 373 500 1061 91 640 159 120 131 126 583 336 1071 437

1038 891 422 594 1273 109 761 195 145 153 135 635 369 1355 544

1163 999 474 697 1504 129 896 237 173 177 144 687 402 1689 668

1308 1125 534 823 1789 153 1061 289 208 205 154 746 440 2120 825

1547 1334 634 1044 2293 197 1351 384 270 254 170 839 501 2938 1118

560

Appendix 7

(cont.)

Fu Pu’an ting total Sichuan Chongqing fu Luzhou Xuyong ting Shunqing fu Tongchuan fu Zizhou Baoning fu Youyang zhou Suiding fu Taiping ting Kuizhou fu Zhongzhou Shizhu ting Mianzhou Chengdu fu Qiongzhou Long’an fu Meizhou Jiading fu Xuzhou fu Yazhou fu Ningyuan fu Maozhou Lifan ting Maogong ting Songpan ting total Zhili Shuntian fu Xuanhua fu Yongping fu Baoding fu Yizhou

Area

1680

1776

1880

1910

1953

64 3865

32134 6513 6783 13368 16294 9493 33536 14523 11689 7767 21927 7495 4181 6273 12104 3247 12904 3011 12036 22924 193133 51646 10644

82 2460 3493 4472 5594 6927 10606 17 496 735 965 1245 1621 2365 7 199 282 378 496 656 716 41 1210 1718 2120 2581 3164 4853 39 1163 1802 2475 3330 4526 6769 21 619 959 1364 1897 2667 3603 26 773 1197 1630 2175 2931 4496 15 448 622 740 869 1028 1460 23 699 1083 1469 1953 2623 3294 3 96 140 180 229 293 416 31 918 1303 1550 1824 2158 3734 16 473 698 886 1106 1393 2138 3 75 108 72 49 33 322 21 633 806 959 1128 1335 1673 61 1806 2565 3020 3519 4121 5902 9 266 390 479 580 707 862 8 251 326 397 476 576 651 11 318 424 502 587 691 855 28 840 1132 1422 1761 2196 2810 44 1301 1769 2134 2543 3049 3920 16 492 626 737 859 1007 1264 717 812 1025 1223 1416 1649 2070 43 49 53 56 59 63 69 15 17 18 22 27 33 24 27 31 39 47 55 65 83 45 59 75 88 103 121 152 1368 16504 23388 29387 36461 45633 65108

26001 20614 17540 11098 6771

2501 373 856 1141 204

4235 632 1450 1932 346

140 7476

1851

3846 175652

15861 74986 604472

94 5670

1820

4860 839 1736 2304 412

175 215 267 363 8794 10254 12047 15237

4606 1041 1974 2608 459

5433 1274 2225 2928 508

6446 1571 2519 3300 564

8236 2119 3010 3918 656

561

Population of Individual Fu from 1680 to 1953 (cont.)

Fu Zunhua fu Zhaozhou Dingzhou Shenzhou Jizhou Tianjin fu Hejian fu Zhengding fu Shunde fu Quangping fu Daming fu Chengde fu The three ting of Koubei total Henan Changde fu Weihui fu Huaiqing fu Kaifeng fu Henan fu Guide fu Chenzhou fu Xuzhou Ruzhou Shaanxi Runing fu Guangzhou Nanyang fu total Shandong Jinan fu Qingzhou fu Dengzhou fu Dongchang fu Laizhou fu

Area 7174 3563 2594 2766 4486 12428 9940 14115 6489 6679 7746 135644 56780

1680 319 389 314 264 373 793 770 1035 442 581 1017 292 53

1776 540 658 532 447 632 1343 1303 1752 748 984 1722 495 90

1820 702 767 634 533 750 1601 1616 2089 952 1225 1965 939 117

1851 927 843 706 594 848 2062 1880 2328 1022 1415 2109 1493 140

1880 1201 922 788 657 950 2614 2165 2576 1092 1620 2254 2214 166

1910 1571 1011 868 730 1070 3340 2506 2861 1169 1862 2414 3329 197

1953 2309 1153 1008 848 1268 4745 3091 3324 1290 2275 2663 5970 253

352428 11719 19841 24041 27055 31587 37328 48136 9641 594 1086 1368 1597 1176 1494 2354 10473 922 1488 1750 1962 1352 1717 3066 7261 934 1508 1803 2047 1525 1677 1921 14218 1782 2876 3428 3880 2656 3373 5353 16430 1036 1595 1909 1901 1659 2107 3299 12733 1709 2758 3288 3664 2718 3452 5151 9342 1149 1854 2210 2463 1684 2139 3193 4534 675 1089 1299 1448 1106 1420 2034 7276 432 697 831 926 776 986 1604 9561 266 451 537 598 384 488 814 18253 1628 2505 2925 3278 3540 3874 4506 14703 1054 1784 2081 2283 2461 2692 3099 32356 2189 3534 4213 4724 5181 5668 6846 166781 13718 23225 27642 30771 26218 31087 43240 14938 16576 18249 7295 15765

2640 2251 2170 985 2054

3519 2973 2893 1418 2928

4015 3319 3415 1697 3374

4430 3581 3806 1835 3854

4856 3844 4211 1975 4364

5340 4137 4677 3131 4963

6120 4596 5435 2376 5967

562

Appendix 7

(cont.)

Fu Yizhou fu Linqing zhou Jining fu Yanzhou fu Caozhou fu Wuding fu Tai’an fu total Shanxi Jiezhou Jiangzhou Puzhou fu Pingyang fu Xizhou Huozhou Zezhou fu Lu’an fu Qinzhou Liaozhou Fenzhou fu Taiyuan fu Pingding fu Xinzhou Baode zhou Daizhou Ningwu fu Datong fu Shuoping fu The six ting of Kweisui total Shaanxi Xi’an fu Tongzhou fu Fūzhou Xing’an fu

Area

1680

1776

1820

1851

1880

1910

1953

23879 2381 3493 4074 4540 5024 5579 6483 2315 592 946 1084 1011 947 885 803 3613 477 763 889 992 1100 1223 1425 14574 1404 2245 2618 3052 3522 4085 5053 12105 1704 2724 3177 3481 3792 4142 4702 11055 1409 1879 2191 2326 2460 2606 2831 10762 1591 2121 2473 2677 2883 3113 3475 151126 19568 27902 32326 35585 38978 43881 49266 4571 5480 3804 13884 5895 2730 9395 8706 5503 6422 14583 17757 8841 6304 2727 9851 5888 29306 14986 21196 197829 24338 11443 11731 19888

403 467 550 773 71 186 468 489 139 118 1068 1250 382 218 85 307 143 527 364 83

651 753 888 1248 115 301 755 789 224 190 1567 1834 561 320 124 450 210 702 485 111

800 1017 1109 1398 134 351 900 941 267 213 1807 2087 640 366 141 513 239 765 530 121

830 1151 1255 1516 149 391 1018 1065 302 241 2001 2329 702 401 155 563 262 814 564 129

8091 12278 14339 15838 7 4 1 6

2423 1582 248 100

2944 1805 272 1214

3251 1981 308 1313

300 445 347 566 53 145 787 823 234 80 869 1104 606 302 83 580 147 732 508 116

390 552 415 724 81 235 906 977 273 124 1051 1388 720 368 103 644 182 1069 673 992

567 753 628 1221 146 314 1110 1253 341 251 1381 1928 924 487 137 748 245 2014 755 1011

8827 11867 16214 1039 900 134 673

2062 1129 178 953

4638 1562 248 1649

563

Population of Individual Fu from 1680 to 1953 (cont.)

Fu Shangzhou Hanzhong fu Suide zhou Yulin fu Yan’an fu Fengxiang fu Binzhou Ganzhou total Gansu Lanzhou fu Gongchang fu Pingliang fu Qingyang fu Ningxia fu Ganzhou fu Liangzhou fu Xining fu Jingzhou Qinzhou Jiezhou Suzhou Anxi zhou total Xinjiang Urumqi Yili Tarbagatay Hami Turpan Khara-Shahr Kuqa Aksu Uchturpan Kashgar Ye’erqiang

Area

1680

1776

1820

1851

1880

1910

1953

17752 29156 8677 12677 33572 15038 3929 2334 190535

48 49 175 300 393 522 112 157 1772

87 752 898 755 1804 1830 249 284 338 427 477 583 560 638 689 1000 1348 1429 215 258 283 300 343 366 7946 12139 13269

571 1389 259 417 300 1019 134 185 7020

823 1289 1675 2185 345 519 506 669 153 655 1233 1519 212 410 276 491 9545 15834

46335 51201 28580 21731 33029 21810 44413 34601 7981 18015 17322 31868 171505 528391

1124 2415 2695 2912 1879 3401 3795 4100 1235 2300 2539 2743 655 1141 1273 1375 940 1353 1510 1629 502 810 904 976 835 1348 1504 1625 395 638 709 788 442 800 898 970 483 779 869 939 211 340 379 410 224 405 452 488 38 69 78 84 8728 15799 17605 19039

881 759 321 123 170 188 458 264 106 933 471 116 36 4955

1298 2254 1186 2251 576 1330 170 706 224 890 285 515 716 1359 413 1253 245 613 1164 1601 649 841 190 366 45 131 7161 14110

85438 437895 231639 90938 100171 104334 23844 58366 43273 137119 151450

55 47 13 6 7 12 19 28 1 12 5

119 100 29 12 15 25 40 60 2 26 10

211 130 35 13 17 28 47 71 5 310 119

228 151 40 14 18 34 65 104 14 351 166

60 60 5 1 2 40 88 149 28 444 257

138 104 9 5 68 48 121 217 47 600 431

430 536 209 81 146 138 305 338 98 946 907

564

Appendix 7

(cont.)

Fu

Area

Hotan total Liaoning Xingjing Fengtian fu Jinzhou fu total Jilin Heilongjiang Qinghai Tibet Inner Mongolia

593799 2058266

76201 17031 93232 #### #### 612934 1263696 ####

1680 5 208

300 40 40 254 1036 300

1776

1820

1851

1880

1910 381 2169

1953

10 448

119 1105

178 1363

258 1392

640 4774

390 220 610 294 108 280 1140 1855

8 1315 434 1757 567 168 300 1190 2290

2582 1238 370 314 1231 2656

4090 10696 18545 2569 5477 11290 775 1981 11897 329 344 1677 1270 1312 1374 3052 3497 6100

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004688933_026

Jiangsu Jiangning fu Yangzhou fu Tongzhou Haimen ting Haizhou Xuzhou fu Huai’an fu Suzhou fu Songjiang fu Zhenjiang fu Changzhou fu Taicang zhou total

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

5 6 2 1 2 7 5 6 7 3 7 3

5 8 3

6 2

3

8 17 40 32 24 14 12 20

2

6 4

34 23 22

1 3

20 200 500 50 150 63 16 2352

853 450 50

25 150 100 10 50 77 60 66 63 21 77 30 729 92 240

100 48 30 10 150

25 40 15

10

5 15

883 615 150 10 60 97 285 706 176 171 170 148 3471

883 615 168 53 60 97 285 706 176 171 170 148 3532

22.4 11.9 9.3 9.3 5.8 3.3 10.8 13.8 7.7 9.7 5.5 10.4 11.1

405 980 392 25 167 132 431 535 1039 211 427 104 4848

19.8 17.3 10.7 2.2 9.8 3.0 11.1 21.2 43.2 14.8 18.4 8.4 15.0

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Cities and towns in 1776

Towns: number, population unit: thousand people, urbanization rate (%)

Population of Fu and Towns in the Qing Dynasty

Appendix 8

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

5.5 3.5

7 5 5 5 6 5

2

2 6 3

15 9 11 7 19 17

17 7

Hangzhou fu Jiaxing fu Huzhou fu Yanzhou fu Shaoxing fu Ningbo fu

1

3

11 21 12 13 23 18 17 18 6

5 4 2 5 5 4 5 6 3 2 1 2 45

1

5

1

500 70 60 20 70 61

50 30 30 50 100 50 50 25 30 30 30 30 535

30

98 100 63 35 126 107

55 76 38 35 70 88 97 132 48 46 20 36 754

13

154 98

10

10 30 15

25

5

15

5

608 354 236 55 196 178

110 106 83 85 170 138 147 157 83 76 50 66 1314

43

608 219 200 55 196 173

126 114 81 85 183 134 145 155 85 59 54 66 1329

43

22.7 9.3 9.3 4.3 4.7 9.3

4.9 5.1 6.8 3.9 4.2 4.7 4.5 4.4 6.5 12.2 16.0 5.7 5.2

9.9

496 221 162 40 200 329

67 91 147 59 208 165 229 178 57 71 32 71 1396

21

41.3 16.9 14.3 6.5 7.1 16.1

6.4 12.5 17.1 7.2 7.3 4.6 3.8 3.7 3.3 14.6 5.3 5.5 5.5

7.5

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Cities and towns in 1776

Guangde zhou Ningguo fu Chizhou fu Taiping fu Huizhou fu Anqing fu Luzhou fu Yingzhou fu Fengyang fu Sizhou Chuzhou Hezhou fu Liu’an fu total

(cont.)

566 Appendix 8

Cities and towns in 1776

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

9 4 7 5 5 63

6 3 4 2 6 6 3 3 9 4 5 3 2 8 64

Nanchang fu Nankang fu Jiujiang fu Ruizhou fu Raozhou fu Guangxin fu Yuanzhou fu Linjiang fu Ji’an fu Jianchang fu Fǔzhou fu Nan’an fu Ningdu Ganzhou fu total

2 2

1

1 1

1

1

1

3

8 9 11 5 12 14 10 2 19 16 10 8 4 13

3 9 7 8 9 150 20 50 18 50 50 30 15 30 20 30 50 30 50 593

20 30 30 63 60 984 72 36 48 24 72 72 36 36 108 48 60 36 24 96 768

72 29 163 70 115 979

376

28

250 28

70

252

30

10 10

5

5

15 80 297 56 98 42 377 150 66 79 148 78 90 86 54 146 1767

92 59.33 193 133 190 2295 297 56 98 61 377 150 46 79 148 78 90 86 54 146 1766

80 59 190 133 190 2103 9.5 7.7 9.8 6.9 26.3 13.1 7.4 7.1 5.5 6.7 6.1 18.1 6.6 7.0 9.4

9.3 5.8 9.3 8.0 8.7 9.4 349 41 69 30 197 153 76 49 115 27 74 120 38 121 1459

81 76 268 148 150 2171

16.1 7.5 11.5 6.5 12.9 10.9 9.3 8.3 6.2 5.0 6.2 18.1 5.3 6.4 9.8

7.7 8.1 11.4 5.3 6.5 11.7

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Chuzhou fu Quzhou fu Jinghua fu Wenzhou fu Taizhou fu total

(cont.)

Population of Fu and Towns in the Qing Dynasty

567

Changsha fu Hengzhou fu Baoqing fu Yuezhou fu Changde fu Lizhou Yongzhou fu Chenzhou Guiyang fu Yongshun fu Ganzhou Hall Fenghuang ting Yongsui ting Huangzhou ting Jingzhou Chenzhou fu Yuanzhou fu total

(cont.) Population in 1776

Population in 1910

3 3 2 57

10 6 4 3 3 5 7 5 3 3

1

3 2

6 9 3

18 7 7 9 7 8 19 6 5 4

9 15 10 379

0 0

0 0 0 11 9 383

120 48 32 24 24 40 35 10 12 0 0 0

130 50 40 40 40 5 18 30 10 0 0 0

18

3

9 6

0 26 19 780

0 0

259 104 72 64 64 45 56 40 22 0 0 0

0 26 19 784

0 0

259 109 76 70 60 46 56 42 22 0 0 0

0.0 3.7 3.5 5.2

0.0 0.0

7.6 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.4 4.0 5.4 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

41 33 34 1357

2 9

462 151 122 78 174 62 93 47 23 20 0 6

7.8 3.0 5.1 5.2

1.5 9.0

6.1 5.6 4.1 5.3 9.7 3.2 3.6 4.7 3.1 2.5 0.0 4.5

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Cities and towns in 1776

568 Appendix 8

Funing fu Fuzhou fu Jianning fu Shaowu fu Tingzhou fu Yanping fu Longyan fu Yongchun fu Xinghua fu

Cities and towns in 1776

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

4 8 6 3 7 5 2 2 1

2 2 2

1

2

2

9 19 9 2 4 4 1 3 3

16 37 19 16 24 6 10 3 7 24 9 20 195 50 20 50 50 10 10 20

149 24 75 18 28 14 30 24 6 28 8 402 28 96 72 21 84 60 6 6 20

48 95 90 61 56 23 12 14 12 88 26 525 10 10

37

5

15

17

58 301 122 41 134 60 16 16 40

214 118 165 79 99 37 47 38 18 116 34 963.9 52 301 104 49 118 67 15 28 32

214 118 165 79 99 37 47 38 18 116 34 1137 8.2 12.7 9.2 8.1 9.4 8.6 5.3 6.9 7.2

6.9 3.9 6.5 7.0 6.3 4.1 12.4 5.7 2.3 8.6 4.8 7.0 52 151 87 33 134 48 20 10 69

785 198 270 135 180 64 70 61 29 198 59 2049

5.1 5.9 12.3 13.2 12.2 8.0 8.8 2.5 6.5

22.2 5.8 10.2 8.5 7.2 4.1 10.3 4.7 2.2 9.1 4.3 9.3

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Hanyang fu 3 Huangzhou fu 7 Wuchang fu 9 De’an fu 4 Jingzhou fu 6 Anlu fu 3 Jingmen fu 2 Yichang fu 6 Shinan fu 5 Xiangyang fu 6 Yunyang fu 5 total 56

(cont.)

Population of Fu and Towns in the Qing Dynasty

569

Cities and towns in 1776

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

12 12 2 1 9 8 4 5 1

Guangzhou fu Zhaoqing fu Luoding zhou Fogang ting Huizhou fu Chaozhou fu Jiaying fu Shaozhou fu Nanxiong zhou Lianzhou Lianshan ting Gaozhou fu Leizhou fu Lianzhou fu Qiongzhou fu total

2 1 5 2 2 12 78

6 6 4 54

1

1

1

3

1 1

2

2 2 10 10 10 10 725

20 20 20 10 12

22 19 10 13 8

6 1 11 3 12 12

575 12 12

70 50 20 565

46 20 5

17 11 2

4 5 40 16 16 24 674

144 144 10 5 108 96 32 25 5

120 84 48 645

175

175

35

5

5

15

5 5

30

10

6 7 55 26 26 34 1609

899 161 22 5 128 131 52 40 17

200 134 68 1240

6 0 55 26 26 34 1597

899 161 22 0 128 131 52 40 17

208 134 80 1188

2.2 0.0 2.7 4.4 3.1 3.0 8.7

17.0 9.5 4.5 0.0 8.5 6.1 4.3 4.2 9.7

9.8 4.7 8.9 8.6

22 2 129 68 54 64 3015

1756 198 56 1 194 338 65 40 28

1022

285 133

5.4 2.4 4.2 6.7 3.3 3.0 10.2

23.8 6.7 7.1 1.1 7.0 8.1 4.3 3.6 9.8

11.2 7.6 0.0 6.6

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Quanzhou fu Zhangzhou fu Taiwan fu total

(cont.)

570 Appendix 8

Cities and towns in 1776

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

9 7 4 1 2 7 4 3 5 6 3 3 54

10 3 6 3 5 2 2 1

Yunnan fu Chengjiang fu Chuxiong fu Wudingzhou Qujing fu Guangxi Shunning fu Yongchang fu

7

6 12 8 10

12

20 17

20 6 4 0 10 3 0 8

12 14 5 0 0 8 14 8 24 1 1 8 95 40 9 24 12 50 10 10 5

18 22 5 1 1 19 11 15 10 12 5 8 126 60 15 28 12 60 13 10 13

29 36 10 1 1 27 25 23 34 13 5 16 221 60 15 28 12 60 13 10 13

28 20 15 1 1 18 18 16 24 2 0 18 161 5.9 3.5 5.8 5.5 15.4 9.6 2.9 3.4

3.3 2.8 2.4 0.1 0.3 2.6 2.6 2.4 3.1 0.4 0.0 2.6 2.1 137 16 25 12 58 15 5 17

76 90 24 29 3 70 62 46 85 23 10 40 558

12.1 4.5 3.3 3.8 4.5 3.6 0.6 1.8

5.1 5.6 2.2 1.8 0.8 5.3 4.3 3.4 5.7 3.3 1.9 2.8 3.8

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Guilin fu Liuzhou fu Qingyuan fu Si’en fu Sicheng fu Pingle fu Wuzhou fu Xunzhou fu Nanning fu Taiping fu Zhen’an fu Yulin zhou total

(cont.)

Population of Fu and Towns in the Qing Dynasty

571

Guiyang fu Anshun fu Pingyue zhou Duyun fu

Tengyue ting Pu’er fu Yuanjiang zhou Zhenyuan zhou Jingdong ting Kaihua fu Quangnan fu Lin’an fu Zhaotong fu Dongchuan fu Dali fu Menghua ting Lijiang fu Yongbei ting total

(cont.) Population in 1776

Population in 1910

0 0 6 26 7 12 23 0 9 0 138

1 1 1 7 4 2 6 1 2

40 8 2 4

1

1

6 5 3 5

0 0 3

1 1 1

18 15 6 15

1 9 6 91 60 20 24 5 12 0 408

1

3 13 3

58 23 8 19

1 9 12 117 67 32 47 5 21 0 546

2

3 13 6

58 23 8 19

1 9 12 117 67 32 47 5 21 0 546

2

3 13 6

8.1 3.8 2.9 4.9

0.8 3.9 4.7 13.5 14.6 17.2 6.3 2.7 5.1 0.0 6.9

4.4

1.0 2.7 4.0

105 41 14 30

1 27 14 120 67 32 45 5 20 3 642

1

3 13 6

8.0 3.6 2.6 3.6

0.6 4.7 3.1 9.9 5.5 5.2 6.2 2.6 3.2 1.1 4.8

1.4

0.5 2.5 2.7

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Cities and towns in 1776

572 Appendix 8

Cities and towns in 1776

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

5 1 3 2 1 1 3 4 3 4 4 1 51

14 3 2 7 7 4 8 4

Chongqing fu Luzhou Xuyong ting Shunqing fu Tongchuan fu Zizhou Baoning fu Youyang zhou

10 37 6 6 5

7 1

3

60 22 7 13 17 13 9 6

40 0 6 1 0 2 1 3 2 8 8 0 126 159 24 19 56 80 44 41 19

15 1 9 2 2 3 1 12 6 24 6 0 135 219 46 26 69 97 57 50 26

55 1 15 3 2 5 2 15 8 32 14 0 262 219 35 15 82 79 43 53 31

55 0 15 3 2 5 0 15 8 32 14 0 258 8.9 7.0 7.4 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0

6.7 0.0 3.0 2.3 1.7 5.3 0.0 3.1 3.0 4.4 4.9 0.0 4.6 886 133 47 224 282 194 146 54

55 10 29 5 4 6 3 26 12 84 30 6 460

12.8 8.2 7.2 7.1 6.2 7.3 5.0 5.3

3.1 6.5 2.7 1.7 1.9 2.9 1.9 3.5 2.7 4.0 3.6 2.2 3.8

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Zunyi fu Renhuai ting Sinan fu Shiqian fu Songtao ting Tongren fu Sizhou fu Zhenyuan fu Liping fu Dading fu Xingyi fu Pu’an ting total

(cont.)

Population of Fu and Towns in the Qing Dynasty

573

Shuntian fu Xuanhua fu

Cities and towns in 1776

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

24 10

2

3

0

23 3

132

2 8 3 2 4 16 11 2

5 6

1

987 40

20 3 21 8 0 8 50 7 5 6 12 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 127 60

36 3 36 22 1 28 87 10 13 7 52 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 803 50

15

0

1179 100

56 6 57 29 1 36 137 17 18 13 64 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 1105 1179 100

48 8 63 33 1 44 137 19 18 23 58 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 1097 27.8 15.8

6.9 8.1 6.9 7.0 1.3 6.9 7.6 7.2 7.2 7.1 6.9 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 1354 389

161 18 166 84 3 104 729 58 53 38 187 239 39 40 3 0 0 6 3894

21.0 24.8

6.1 6.1 7.7 6.0 9.1 7.8 17.7 8.2 9.2 5.5 8.5 7.8 3.9 2.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 8.5

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Suiding fu 4 Taiping ting 1 Kuizhou fu 5 Zhongzhou 3 Shizhu ting 1 Mianzhou 5 Chengdu fu 14 Qiongzhou 3 Long’an fu 3 Meizhou 3 Jiading fu 6 Xuzhou fu 12 Yazhou fu 5 Ningyuan fu 4 Maozhou 1 Lifan ting 1 Maogong ting 1 Songpan ting 1 total 122

(cont.)

574 Appendix 8

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

1

Changde fu Weihui fu Huaiqing fu Kaifeng fu

6 9 7 15

2

1

19

5 1 1 1 6

2

8 11 22 16

123

4 33 16 4 5 9 7

2 1

8 8

36 12 15 100

1490

8 50 11 11 9 21 13 9 200 11 16 35 4 15 50

35 81 63 135

840.2

56 85 12 22 30 14 21 29 39 76 99 32 42 53 41

180

50

5

90

30

25 5 5

10

76 93 78 415

64 145 23 33 39 35 34 38 239 112 120 72 46 98 91 0 2470 76 93 78 415

64 145 23 33 39 35 34 38 239 112 120 72 46 98 91 14 2484 7.0 6.3 5.2 14.4

4.4 7.5 6.6 6.2 5.9 6.6 7.6 6.1 17.8 8.6 6.9 9.7 4.7 5.7 18.4 15.6 12.5 102 97 79 342

126 234 22 85 38 34 33 57 624 136 117 93 76 93 170 35 3716

6.8 5.6 4.7 10.1

5.0 7.1 3.9 5.4 3.8 3.9 4.5 5.3 18.7 5.4 4.1 8.0 4.1 3.9 5.1 17.8 10.0

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Cities and towns in 1776

Yongping fu 6 Baoding fu 16 Yizhou 2 Zunhua fu 2 Zhaozhou 5 Dingzhou 2 Shenzhou 3 Jizhou 5 Tianjin fu 6 Hejian fu 10 Zhengding fu 13 Shunde fu 8 Quangping fu 9 Daming fu 10 Chengde fu 5 Koubei 3 total 139

(cont.)

Population of Fu and Towns in the Qing Dynasty

575

Cities and towns in 1776

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

9 7 6 4 4 3 9 4 12 95

15 10 9 9 6 7 3 3 9 10

Jinan fu Qingzhou fu Dengzhou fu Dongchang fu Laizhou fu Yizhou fu Linqing zhou Jining fu Yanzhou fu Caozhou fu

1

2 3

1

2

1 2

1

1 4

2

19 21 5 8 7 12 5 3 6 6

28 9 7 14 7 8 17 7 22 176 50 25 12 50 40 40 200 200 12 12

75 8 10 9 29 7 15 40 44 400 195 110 117 54 120 91 18 33 45 60

81 49 60 60 28 24 90 56 108 870.3

25

39 243

24

10

5 10 0

5

5 20

10

250 135 134 114 160 131 218 243 82 72

166 57 94 69 57 31 105 96 196 1533 288 141 138 130 139 159 228 249 115 84

166 57 94 69 57 31 105 96 196 1533 8.2 4.7 4.8 9.2 4.8 4.6 24.1 32.6 5.1 3.1

10.4 2.1 5.1 6.3 8.2 6.9 4.2 5.4 5.5 6.6 605 233 391 114 437 209 66 94 184 204

135 59 168 69 78 30 164 137 242 1702

11.3 5.6 8.4 3.6 8.8 3.7 7.5 7.7 4.5 4.9

6.4 1.7 7.9 4.9 7.9 6.1 4.2 5.1 4.3 5.5

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Henan fu Guide fu Chenzhou fu Xuzhou Ruzhou Shaanxi Runing fu Guangzhou Nanyang fu total

(cont.)

576 Appendix 8

Cities and towns in 1776

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

9 6 96

4 5 6 10 4 3 4 6 3 3 7 10 2 3 2 4 4 9

Jiezhou Jiangzhou Puzhou fu Pingyang fu Xizhou Huozhou Zezhou fu Lu’an fu Qinzhou Liaozhou Fenzhou fu Taiyuan fu Pingding fu Xinzhou Baode zhou Daizhou Ningwu fu Datong fu

1

1 1

1

1

1

6

18 16 15 27 20 6 24 35 11 15 27 24 7 6 1 4 2 6

19 13 124 12 12 12 12 1 5 12 24 4 2 39 50 20 6 3 4 3 30

12 25 678 28 35 42 70 4 12 28 42 6 6 70 70 14 12 2 24 8 18

54 36 933 25

2 2

2

2

2

30 42 47 54 84 5 17 42 66 10 10 111 120 34 18 5 28 11 48

66 61 1666 42 47 54 84 5 17 42 66 10 10 111 120 34 18 5 28 11 48

102 111 1417 6.5 6.2 6.1 6.7 4.3 5.6 5.6 8.4 4.5 5.3 7.1 6.5 6.1 5.6 4.0 6.2 5.2 6.8

5.4 5.2 5.1 19 25 21 107 5 6 40 72 11 8 234 381 58 16 5 25 8 93

119 120 2776

4.9 4.5 5.1 14.8 6.2 2.6 4.4 7.4 4.0 6.5 22.3 27.4 8.1 4.3 4.9 3.9 4.4 8.7

4.6 3.9 6.3

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Wuding fu Tai’an fu total

(cont.)

Population of Fu and Towns in the Qing Dynasty

577

Cities and towns in 1776

Population in 1776

Population in 1910

5 6 100

14 9 3 6 4 9 3 4 9 7 3 2 73

5 7 4 4

Xi’an fu Tongzhou fu Fūzhou Xing’an fu Shangzhou Hanzhong fu Suide zhou Yulin fu Yan’an fu Fengxiang fu Binzhou Ganzhou total

Lanzhou fu Gongchang fu Pingliang fu Qingyang fu

4 3 12

2

2 1

5

2 14

63 42 21 2 10 14 1 1 11 31 6 10 212

264

30 25 25 14

55 14 14 10 3 24 10 24 14 24 10 14 216

5 10 266

15 21 12 12

158 90 6 12 8 27 6 8 18 42 6 4 385

10 12 513

5

0 6 16

4

4 2

10

45 46 37 31

217 106 20 22 11 51 16 32 36 66 16 24 617

15 22 789

45 46 37 31

217 106 20 22 11 51 16 32 36 66 16 24 617

15 22 789

1.9 1.4 1.6 2.7

9.0 6.7 8.1 22.0 12.6 6.8 6.4 7.5 6.4 6.6 7.4 8.0 7.8

3.1 19.8 6.4

106 45 34 6

447 55 7 64 30 111 25 47 20 112 14 17 949

19 104 1257

8.2 3.8 5.9 3.5

21.7 4.9 3.9 6.7 3.6 6.6 7.2 9.3 13.1 9.1 6.6 6.2 9.9

2.8 10.5 10.6

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Shuoping fu Guisui ting total

(cont.)

578 Appendix 8

Ningxia fu Ganzhou fu Liangzhou fu Xining fu Jingzhou Qinzhou Jiezhou Suzhou Anxi zhou total

(cont.) Population in 1776

Population in 1910

4 1 4 2 3 5 2 1 2 44

25 25 30 25 12 12 12 12 12 259

12 3 12 6 9 15 6 3 6 132 5

37 28 42 31 21 27 23 15 18 391

37 28 42 31 21 27 23 15 18 401

2.7 3.5 3.1 4.9 2.6 3.5 6.8 3.7 26.1 2.5

75 40 26 46 11 67 25 45 8 534

33.5 14.0 3.6 11.1 4.5 5.8 3.9 23.7 17.8 7.5

County Large Middle Small Prefectural County Large Middle Combined Revised Urbanization Urban Urbanization capitals town town town capital capitals town town number population rate population rate

Cities and towns in 1776

Population of Fu and Towns in the Qing Dynasty

579

Glossary of Chinese Characters bao jia 保 甲 buzhengsi (province) 布政司 daming huidian (Ming collected statutes) 大明会典 daming yitongzhi (comprehensive geography of the Great Ming) 大明一统志 dan (50 kg) 担（石） daqing huidian (Qing collected statutes) 大清会典 dating yitongzhi (comprehensive geography of the Great Qing) 大清一统志 ding 丁 fuzhi (prefecture records) 府志 hu (household) 户 hutie (household certificate) 户帖 jiaqing yitongzhi (comprehensive geography of the Great Qing edited in the Jiaqing period) 嘉庆一统志 kou (person) 口 li 里 liesi (market) 列肆 lu 路 nongshang table (agriculture and commerce table) 农商表 sheren (housemen) 舍人 qianhusuo 千户所 tongzhi (general records) 通志 tu 图 wan zheng jiyao (essentials of the Anhui government affairs) 《皖政辑要》 wei suo (garrison) 卫所 xianzhi (county records) 县志 xingdusi 行都司

Bibliography

Journal Articles

曹树基，蒋勤:《石仓冶铁业中所见清代浙南乡村工业与市场》，《“中央研究院” 历史语言研究所集刊》第八十一本，第四分，2010年。

Cao, S. (2011). The Emigration in Waxieba: Legend or A Fact? Xueshujie, (9), 35–52. Cao, S. (2019). Crops and Soldiers: The Relations of Droughts and Peasant Wars in the Late Ming Dynasty (Shi Lin). Vol. 2. Cao, S. & Gao, Y. (2010). Songhupiao and shouliangzi: the intermediate procedure in the purchase and sale of land at Shicang of Songyang, Zhejiang. Journal of East China Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), (4), 28–36. Chen, F. (1989). On the Population Registration in the early Qing Dynasty. In Ping Zhun Xue Kan (Vol. 5). Beijing: Guangming Daily Press. Chen, H. (1990). The Evolution of Household Registration in the Qing Dynasty. In Studies on the History of Qing Dynasty (Vol. 7). Beijing: Guangming Daily Press. Chen, Z. (1988). Development and Evolvement of Nanjing City in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. The Journal of Chinese Social and Economic History. (Vol. 1). (pp. 39–45). Gu, C. (1989). The Territorial Management System of the Ming Empire. Historical Research, (3). Hou, X. (2007). Xinan Bianjiang Chengshi Fazhan De Quyu Yanjiu: Yi Qingdai Guangxi Chengshi Wei Zhongxin (p. 83). Doctoral dissertation of Sichuan University. Jiang, W. (2015). Estimate of urban population of Jiangnan in the Republic of China period based on topographic maps and GIS. Researches in Chinese Economic History, (4), 39–56. Liang, H. (1995). Wu Cheng Shang Zhen Ji Qi Zaoqi Shanghui. Zhong Guo Jingji Shi Yanjiu, (1). Liu, B. (2014). Jindai Zhimin Zujiedi Shangye Zuzhi De Dianxing Ge’an: Yi Weihaiwei De Shangbu Shanghui (1916–1930) Wei Li. Jianghan Xueshu, (3). Liu, C. (1988). Qing Qianlong Chao Sichuan Renkou Ziliao Jiantao: Shi Yu Suo Cang Qianlong Liu Shi Nian Fen Sichuan Tong Sheng Min Shu Ce De Ji Dian Guancha. In Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica (Eds.), Zhongguo Jinshi Jiazu Yu Shehui Xueshu Yantaohui Lunwenji (pp. 301–328). Liu, Z. (1988). On the Evolution of Hu (household) in the lijia System in the Pearl River Delta in the Ming and Qing Dynasty. Journal of Sun Yat-sen University, (3). Luan, C. (1997). Mingdai huangce zhidu qiyuan kao (The Origin of the Yellow Register System of the Ming Dynasty). Zhongguo shehui jingji shi yanjiu (The Journal of Chinese Social and Economic History), (4).

582

Bibliography

Luo, E. (1949). Population Pressure before the Taiping Rebellion. Collected Papers on the Economic History of Contemporary China, 8(1), 23–37. Luo Yixing. (1985). On the capital of Foshan merchants in Ming and Qing Dynasties. Social Science of Guangdong, (3). Luo, Y., & Zhou, X. (2013). Studies of Institutional History in the Rural Area. An Interview of Prof. LIU Zhiwe. China’s Social Historical Review, 396–398. In J. Chang (Ed.), China’s Social Historical Review. Tianjin: Tianjin Classics Publishing House. Ma, S. (2011). A new discussion of the wei-suo population data of dusi in the Ming Dynasty: Evaluating two sets of the population data of Shaanxi xindusi in local historical accounts. Journal of Suzhou University of Science and Technology (Social Science), (4), 49–53. Pan, Z., & Chen, H. (1987). On the ding in the Qing Dynasty. Research on the Economic History of China, (1). Shan, L. & Cao, S. (2010). The evolution and nature of huahu based on Shicang documents. Journal of Social Sciences, (8). Wang, J. (1991). Ming zhong du. Palace Museum Journal, 61–69. Wang, S. (1930). Estimates of Population of Contemporary China. Social Science Journal, 1(3). Wang, S. (1932). Household Registers of Ministry of Civil Affairs and Estimates of Population. Social Science Journal, 3(3), 264–265. Xu, T. (1986). The commerce of Lingqing in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Research on the Socioeconomic History of China, (2). Xu, T. (2003). Commerce in Luoyajng in the Mid Qing Dynasty. An investigation centering on inscriptions of Shanshaan Guild Hall, Journal of Tianjin Normal University, (4), 43–47. Xu, T. (2003). Zhoukou, an important commercial town in Henan in the Qing Dynasty. A case analysis on commercial towns of Henan during the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Journal of Chinese Historical Studies, (1), 131–143. Xu, T. (2008). On the Commerce of Zhoucun Town in Shandong Province in the Qing Dynasty. Journal of Historical Science, (8), 103–108. You, H. & Cao, S. (2006). The population of Jiangnan cities since the mid Qing Dynasty. Researches in Chinese Economic History, (3), (pp. 124–134). Zhang, J. (1999). On the population size of cities of Xinjiang in the Qing Dynasty. Journal of Chinese Historical Geography, (4). Zhang, X. (2012). Da Qing Yitong Zhi zhong “zisheng nanfu daxiao” kao—yi jiangsu weili (Sources of “zisheng nanfu daxiao” in Records of the Unity of the Great Qing: a case study of Jiangsu). Zhongguo jingji shi yanjiu (Researches in Chinese Economic History), (3). Zhang, X., & Hou, Y. (2010). Da-qing yitongzhi zhong “yuan’e rending” de laiyuan-yi jiangnan weili (Sources of “yuan’e rending”in Chorography the Great Qing: a case study of Jiangnan). Qingshi yanjiu (The Qing History Journal), (1).

Bibliography



583

Books

Cao, S. (1997). The Ming period. In The History of Chinese Immigration (Vol. 5). Fuzhou: Fujian People Publishing House. Cao, S. (2000). Ming Shiqi (The Ming Dynasty). In Zhongguo Renkou Shi (The Population History of China) (Vol. 4). Shanghai: Fudan University Press. Cao, S. (2001). Qing Shiqi (The Qing Dynasty). In Zhongguo Renkou Shi (The Population History of China) (Vol. 5). Shanghai: Fudan University Press. Cao, S. (2003). Qing Shiqi (The Qing Dynasty). In Zhongguo Renkou Shi (The Population History of China) (Vol. 5). Shanghai: Fudan University Press. Cao, S. (2005). The Great Famine: Chinese Population in the period of 1959–1961. Hongkong: Hongkong Times International Publishing Co., Ltd. Cao, S. & Li, Y. (2006). The Plague: War and Peace: China’s Environmental and Social Changes (1230–1960). Jinan: Shandong Pictorial Publishing House. Chen, T. (1946). Population in Modern China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cong, H. (Ed.). (1995). Modern Village Administration in Hebei, Shandong, and Henan (pp. 119–208). Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House. Fan, S. (2005). Cities and Towns in Jiangnan: The Transformation of Tradition. Shanghai: Fudan University Publishing House. Fang, X. & Jing, J. & Wei, J. (Ed.). (2000). Qing Dai Jingji Juan, Zhongguo Jingji Tongshi (Vol. II). Beijing: Jingji ribao Publishing House. Fu, C. (1985). The History of Chinese Canal Cities. Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House. Gao, S. (2014). The Population History of Beijing. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. Ge, J. (1991). Demographic Development History of China. Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Publishing House. Ge, Q. (2002). A Study of Population Migration in the Border Area of Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Anhui in Modern China. Shanghai: Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press. Guo, Y., et al. (1989). The History of the Ancient Cities in Tianjin. Tianjin: Tianjin Ancient Books Publishing House. Han, G. (1996). The Historical Demographic Geography of Bejing. Beijing: Peking University Press. Ho, P. (1989). Studies of Population of China, 1368–1953. Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Works Publishing House. Ho, P. (1989). Studies on the Population of China, 1368–1953 (J. Ge, Trans.). Shanghai: Shanghai Classics Publishing House. (Original work published 1959). Hu, H. (1935). The Distribution of Population in China With Statistics and Maps [J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 1935, 2(2): 33–74. Hunan Provincial Atlas. (1993). Changsha: Hunan Map Publishing House. Academy of Meteorological Sciences of Bureau of Meteorological Sciences (Eds.) (1981). Chinese Atlas of 500 years of Drought and Flood Distribution. Beijing: SinoMaps Press.

584

Bibliography

Li, G. (1985). Zhongguo Xiandai Hua De Quyu Yanjiu: Min Zhe Tai Diqu. Taipei: Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica. Li, T. (Ed.). (2008). Ke Zuo Menggu Shi Lue. Shengyang: Liaoning minzu Publishing House. Liang, F. (1980). Statistics of Population, Land and Field Taxes of China in History. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House. Liang Miaotai. (1991). Ming Qiang Jingdezhen Chengshi Jingji Yanjiu. Nanchang: Jiangxi renmin Publishing House. Luan, C. (1988). A Study of the Yellow Registers System in the Ming Dynasty. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Luo, Y. (1994). Ming qing Foshan Jingji Fazhan Yu Shehui Bianqian. Guangzhou: Guangdong renmin Publishing House. Ren, F. (2003). Ming Qing Changjiang Zhongyou Shi Zhen Jingji Yanjiu. Wuhan: Wuhan daxue Publishing House. Ricci, M. (1983). Matteo Ricci’s Notes about China. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Shi, H. (2008). Research on the Urban Geography of Xi’an in Ming-Qing Times. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Skinner, G.W. (1991). Zhongguo Fengjian Shehui Wanqi Chengshi Yanjiu: Shi Jianya Moshi (A Study of the City in Late Feudalist China: G. William Skinner’s Model). Changchun: Jilin Education Press. Skinner, G. (1995). Regional Urbanization in Nineteenth-Century China. The City in Late Imperial China (Ed.). Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc. Tan, Q. (1982). The Historical Atlas of China edited. Beijing: China’s Atlas Press. Tan, Q. (1987). A research on the hereditary headmen “Yangbao” in Bozhou. In The Changshui Collection (Book 1). Beijing: People’s Press. Wang, D. (1993). Kua Chu Fengbi De Shijie: Changjiang Shangyou Quyu Shehui Yanjiu (1644–1911) (Regional Social Study of the Upper Stream of the Yangtze River). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Wang, K. (1994). A study of Tibetan population. In C. Fu (Ed.), The History of Lhasa. Beijing: China Social Science Publishing House. Wang, S. (1985). Zhongguo Xiandai Hua De Quyu Yanjiu: Jiangsu Sheng. Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica. Wang, Z. (1996). Social Changes of Huizhou Merchants and Huaiyang in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore. Wei, Y. (Ed.). (1991). Jindai Chongqing Chengshi Shi. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue Publishing House. Xie, B. & Li, J. (2009). Kunming Chengshi Shi (Vol. 1). Kunming: Yunnan daxue Publishing House. Xu, T. (1998). Research on Commodity Economy in Shandong in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

Bibliography

585

Xu, Y. (1988). Liang Zhe Shishi Cong Gao. Hangzhou: Zhejiang guji Publishing House. Yang, Y. (1993). A Grand View of Zhoukou. Zhengzhou: Zhongyuan Farmers’ Press. Zaozhuang Mining Burau CPC Committee, (Ed.). (1959). A History of Mining in Zaozhuang. Jinan: Shandong Renmin Press. Zhang, G. (1995). The migrants of Hunan and Hubei Provinces during the Ming and Qing dynasties. Shaanxi: Shaanxi People’s Education Press. Zhang, J. (2005). A Study on Wei-suo and Military Household in the Ming Dynasty. Beijing: Thread-Binding Books Publishing House. Zhang, P. (2006). Diyu Huanjing Yu Shichang Kongjian–Ming Qing Shaanxi Quyu Shichang De Lishi Dilixue Yanjiu (Geographical environment and market space. A historical geographical research of the market in Shaanxi in the Ming and Qing Dynasties). Beijing: The Commercial Press. Zhang, Y. (1982). “Zhongguo Xiandaihua De Quyu Yanjiu: Shandong Sheng (1860–1916)” [Regional studies of China’s modernization: Shandong province (1860–1916)], Taipei: special issue of the Institute of modern history, Academia Sinica (43), 169–183.



Histories

Anonymous author(s). The Records of the Southeast. A Compilation of The Documents of the Taipingtianguo (Book 5). Anonymous author(s). (1983). A Brief Records of Invasions. Selected Historical Materials of the Taipingtianguo in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui and Henan. Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House. Bianchen Choufang Beilan (Comprehensive Records of Bianchen), carving copy in Xianfeng 10th year, kept by Shagnhai Library. Collected Statutes of the Great Ming compiled in Wanli period. (1989). Zhonghua Book Company. Collected Statutes of the Great Qing compiled in Jiaqing period. Carving copy in the Guangxu period. Dami shan fangji (Vol. 87). Carving copy in Wanli 39th year. Kept by National Library of China. Daming Yitong Zhi (Comprehensive Geography of the Great Ming) edited in Tianshun periods. (2017). Chengdu: Ba Shu Shushe. Daqing Yitong Zhi (Comprehensive Geography of the Great Qing) edited in Qianlong periods, Supplements for Siku Quanshu. Daqing Yitong Zhi (Comprehensive Geography of the Great Qing) edited in Jiaqing periods. Fan, K. (1975). Hankou Congtan. Taibei: Chengwen Publishing Co. Ltd.

586

Bibliography

Fan, L. (1929). Yunjian jumu chao. Shanghai: Jinbu Shuju. Fei, Y. Zhaocai Guan Qingke (Zhaocai’s Works). In Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature (No. 118). Taipei: Commercial Press Tai Wan. Feng, M. (2009). Xingshi Hengyan (A Collection of Short Novels of Feng Menglong). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. The First Historical Archive of China (Eds.) (1999). A Collection of the Imperial Edicts in Chinese during the Reign of Emperor Yongzheng (Vol. 8). Guangxi: Guangxi Normal University Press. Gu, Q. (1987). The full story of xiang and fang, Kezuo zhuiyu (The Story of JingLing). (Vol. 2). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Gu, Zuyu. (2005). Dushi Fangyu Jiyyao (Essentials of Historical Geography). Beijing. Gujin Tushu Jicheng (A Great Collection of ancient and Contemporary Works). (1985). Nanjing: Nanjing Publishing House. Haiwai Sanren. (1980). The Document of Rongcheng. In The Document of Qing Dynasty’s History (Vol. 1). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. The History of the Yuan Dynasty. (1974) Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. The History of the Yuan Dynasty. (1976). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Houhu Zhi. (2011). Nanjing: Nanjing Publishing House. Hubu Qingce (Registry of the Ministry of Revenue), Imperial Cabinet Repository of the Qing Dynasty, Kept by The First Historical Archives of China. Institute of History and Philology (Eds.), (1962). The Veritable Records of Taizu, Ming Emperor. Taibei: Academia Sinica. Institute of History and Philology (Eds.), (1962). The Veritable Records of Taizong, Ming Emperor. Taibei: Academia Sinica. Institute of History and Philology (Eds.), (1962). The Veritable Records of Xuanzong, Ming Emperor. Taibei: Academia Sinica. Institute of History and Philology (Eds.), (1962). The Veritable Records of Taizu, Ming Emperor. Taibei: Academia Sinica. Institute of History and Philology (Eds.), (1962). The Veritable Records of Yingzong, Ming Emperor. Taibei: Academia Sinica. Institute of History and Philology (Eds.), (1962). The Veritable Records of Shenzong, Ming Emperor. Taibei: Academia Sinica. Ji, L. (1984). Mingji Nanlue. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Jinmen baojia tushuo (Images and Illustration of baojia in Tianjin), carving copy in Daoguang 26th year, kept by Tianjin Library. Li, C. Liujiage Inspection Records. (Jiajing 1st year). In Vol. 3, Hanyang fu Records of Huguang Tujing Zhishu (Huguang Provincial Maps and Records). China National Library. Li, Tizhai. (1958). Zhenzhou Zhu Zhi Ciwu. Taibei: Zhonghua Congshu Weiyuanhui. Li, W. (Ming Dynasty). Epitaph of Liu chushi (scholars who had never been an officials).

Bibliography

587

Liu, X. (1957). Guangyang Zaji. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Luo Raodian. (1970). Qian Nan Zhi Fang Ji Lue (A Comprehensive Record of Southern Guizhou). Taibei: National Scholar Press. Ming Jingshi Wenbian. (1962). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Pan, S. (1968). An Account of the Maps on The Population, Land, Products, and Husbantry of Nanyang County in Nanyang Fu. Taiwan: Chengwen Press. Qian, D. (n.d.). Official Recordings of Hou Huangliang’s Allegiance. In Collected Essays of Qianyantang (Vol. 22). In Supplements for Siku Quanshu (Vol. 1438) (pp. 636–639). Qinjiang zhilue (Essentials of Administration in Shaanxi Province). Taibei: Chengwen Publishing Co. Ltd. 1970. Qing Shigao. (1998). Zhonghua Book Company. Qingchao Wenxian tongkao. Wanyouwenku (1936). The Commercial Press. Sanang, C. (1981). Mongol Origin and Development (annotated newly-translated version). Hohhot: Inner Mongolia People’s Press. Tan, Q. (2006). Zaolin Zazu: Zhiji. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Tang, L. (1997). The Records of Pan Yihou’s Protection of People in His Territory. In Neixingzhai Wenji. (Vol. 14). In Series of Indexes to Siku Quanshu (Vol. 199). Jinan: Qilu Press. Tang, L. (n.d.). Epitaph of the County Magistrate Wu Zhongsheng. In Collected Works of Neixingzhai (Vol. 29). In Series of Indexes to Siku Quanshu (Vol. 199). Wan Zheng Jiyao (The Record of Administrative Affairs in Anhui), A copy in the Xuantong period, kept in Anhui Library. Wengzhou Laomin. (1985). Hai dong yi shi (Vol. 10). Selected historical materials of the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties. Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House. Ye, M. (2007). Yueshi Pian. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Yu, M. (Ed.). (1981). Rixia Jiuwen Kao. Beijing: Beijing Guji Press. Zhang, H. (1992). Tushu Bian. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Press. Zhang, Yushu. (1986 reprint). Shunzhi Jian Hukou Shumu (Household Registers during the reign of Emperor Shunzhi). In Collection of Zhang Wenzhen (Vol. 7). In Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature (No. 1322). Taipei: Commercial Press Tai Wan. Zhou, C. Yuhang Zaihu Buzhu Gongshu. In Cheng, M. (Ed.), Huangming Wenheng (Vol. 27): Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature (No. 1373).



Local Records

Anding xian Zhi (Anding County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Anren xian Zhi (Anren County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Anxi xian Zhi (Anxi County Records) edited in the Jiajing period. An’yi xian Zhi (An’yi County Records) edited in the Qianlong period.

588

Bibliography

Anzhou Zhi (Anzhou Records) edited in the Wanli period. Baihe xian Zhi (Baihe County Records) edited in the Guangxu period. Baixiang xian Zhi (Baixiang County Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Bamin Tong Zhi (The General Records of Bamin) edited in the Hongzhi period. Bao’an zhou Xu Zhi (Bao’an zhou Records Continued) edited in the Guangxu period. Baoding jun Zhi (Baoing jun Records) edited in the Hongzhi period. Baoqing fu Zhi (Baoqing fu Records) edited in the Longqing period. Bishan xian Zhi (Bishan County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Botou shi difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (2000). Botou Shi Zhi. Beijing: Zhongguo duiwai fanyi Publishing House. Boye xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1996) Boye Xian Zhi. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Brief Records of Anhui Province edited in the Daoguang period. Changde fu Zhi (Changde fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Changning xian Zhi (Changning County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Changsha fu Zhi (Changsha fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Changsha fu Zhi (Changsha fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Changshu xian Zhi (Changshu County Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Changtai xian Zhi (Changtai County Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Changyuan xian Zhi (Changyuan County Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Changzi County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Chengde County Records edited in the Xuantong period. Chengde fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Chengdu xian Zhi (Chengdu County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Chenzhou Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1994). Chenzhou Shi Zhi. Hefei: Huangshan shushe. Chenzhou Zhilizhou Georgraphy Records edited in the Guangxu period. Chuzhou fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Chuzhou fu Zhi (Chuzhou fu Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Chuzhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Cixi County Records edited in the Guangxu period. A Collection of Shili Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Compilation Committee of Baofeng Records. (1996). Baofeng Xianzhi. Beijing: Fangzhi Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Changge Records. (1992). Changge Xianzhi. Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Sanlian Bookstore. Compilation Committee of Dancheng Records. (1992). Dancheng Xianzhi. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Guizhou Anlong Records (Ed.). (1992). Anlong Xian Zhi. Guiyang: Guizhou renmin Publishing House.

Bibliography

589

Compilation Committee of Guizhou Rongjiang Records (Ed.). (1999). Rongjiang Xian Zhi. Guiyang: Guizhou renmin Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Huangchuan Xianzhi. (1992). Huangchuan Xianzhi. Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Sanlian Bookstore. Compilation Committee of Liaoning Jianchang Records (Ed.). (1992). Jianchang Xian Zhi. Shengyang: Liaoning daxue Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Lingui Records (Ed.). (1996). Lingui Xian Zhi. Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Linying Records. (1996). Linying Xianzhi. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Linxian Records. (1989). Linxian Zhi. Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Local History of Mengjin County, Henan Province. (1991). Mengjin Xianzhi (p. 119). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Lushan Records. (1994). Lushan Xianzhi. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Shenqiu Records. (1987). Shenqiu Xianzhi. Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Songxian Records of Henan Province. (1990). Songxian Zhi. Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Xixian Zhi. (1989). Xixian Zhi (p. 361, p. 567). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Compilation Committee of Yongcheng Records. (1991). Yongcheng Xianzhi. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Compilation Committee of the Records of Fangcheng county (Ed.). (1992). The Records of Fangcheng County. Zhengzhou: Zhognzhou Guji Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Fugou County. (1986). Fugou Xianzhi. Henan Province, Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Compilation committee of Records of Kaifeng. (1996). Kaifeng shi Zhi (Records of Kaifeng) (1). Kaifeng: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. Compilation Committee of the Records of Kaifeng City. (Ed.). (1996). The Records of Kaifeng City (Vol. 1). Records Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Luoning county. (Ed.). (1991). The Records of Luoning County. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Compilation Committee of the Records of Luoshan county. (Ed.). (1987). The Records of Luoshan County. Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Miyang county (Ed.). (1994). The Records of Miyang County. Zhengzhou: Zhognhzou Guji Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Nanzhao county (Ed.). (1995). The Records of Nanzhao County. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press.

590

Bibliography

Compilation Committee of the Records of Neixiang county. (Ed.). (1994). The Records of Neixiang County (p. 121). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Compilation Committee of the Records of the Old City of Luoyang. (Ed.). (1989). The Records of the Old City of Luoyang. Records Zhengzhou: Henan Renmin Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Penglai City, Shandong Province (Ed.). (1995). Penglai xian Zhi. Jinan: Qilu shushe. Compilation Committee of the Records of Ruzhou City (Ed.). (1994). The Records of Ruzhou City. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Shangcai county. (Ed.). (1995). The Records of Shangcai County. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Compilation Committee of Shangcheng Records. (1991). Shangcheng Xianzhi. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. Compilation Committee of the Records of Shangqiu City. (1994). The Records of Shangqiu City. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Compilation Committee of the Records of Shangshui County. (1990). Shangshui Xianzhi (Shangshui Xianzhi). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Compilation Committee of the Records of Tanghe county (Ed.). (1993). The Records of Tanghe County. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Tongbai county (Ed.). (1995). The Records of Tongbai County. Zhenghzou: Zhonghzou Guji Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Wei Chengqu, Weifangshi, Shandong Province (Ed.). (1993). Wei Chengqu Zhi. Jinan: Qilu shushe. Compilation Committee of the Records of Weihui City. (Ed.). (1993). The Records of Weihui City. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Compilation Committee of the Records of the Wenfeng district in Anyang city. (Ed.). (2000). The Records of the Wenfeng District in Anyang City. Records Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Xichuan county. (Ed.). (1990). The Record of Xichuan County. Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Press. Compilation Committee of Xiangcheng Records. (1999). Xiangcheng Xianzhi. Tianjin: Nankai University Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Xingyang City. (Ed.). (1996). The Records of Xingyang City. Beijing: Xinhua Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Xinzheng county. (Ed.). (1992) The Records of Xinzheng Count. Xi’an: Shaanxi People’s Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Yanling county. (Ed.). (1989). The Records of Yanling County. Tianjin: Nankai University Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Zhengzhou City. (Ed.). (1993). The Records of Zhengzhou City. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Zhenping county (Ed.). (1998). The Records of Zhenping County. Beijing: Fangzhi Press.

Bibliography

591

Compilation Committee of the Records of Zhongmu County (Ed.). (1999). The Record of Zhongmu County. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Compilation Committee of the Records of Zhoukou City (Ed.). (1994). The Records of Zhoukou City. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. Compilation Committee of the Records of Zhumandian City of Henan Province. (Ed.). (1989). The Recordsof Zhumadian City. Zhenghzou: Henan People’s Press. Compilation Committee of Ruyang Records. (1995). Ruyang Xianzhi (p. 96). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Sanlian Bookstore. Compilation Committee of Tianjin Zhi (Ed.). (1986). A General Review of Tianjin in the early 20th century (Tianjin Zhi). (Hou Zhentong trans.). Congde xian Zhi (Congde County Records) edited in the Wanli period. Congning County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Dading fu Zhi (Dading fu Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Dainjiang County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Daizhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Daming fu Zhi (Daming fu Records) edited in the Zhengde period. Danleng County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Dantu County Records Revised in the Guangxu period. Datong fu Zhi (Datong fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Datong xian Zhi (Datong County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Daxian County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Dayao xian Zhi (Dayao County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Daye xian Zhi (Daye County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Dazhu County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. De’an fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. De’an fu Zhi (De’an fu Records) edited in the Zhengde period. Denglin zhen Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Dengzhou fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Dezhou Financial, Fiscaland Trade Committee. (1993). Dezhou Finance and Commerce Records. Jinan: Qilu Shushe. Dezhou Zhi (Dezhou Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Dingxing County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Dingzhou Records Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1998). Dingzhou Shi Zhi. Beijing: Zhongguo chengshi Publishing House. Dong’an County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Dongchang fu Zhi (Dongchang fu Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Dongchang fu Zhi (Dongchang fu Records) edited in the Xianfeng period. Dong’e xian Zhi (Dong’e County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. The Draft Records of Anxiang County edited in the period of Republic of China. Editorial Committee of Lingbao Records. (1992). Lingbao Xianzhi. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House.

592

Bibliography

Fanchang xian Zhi (Fanchang County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Fengnan xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1990). Fengnan Xian Zhi. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Fengxiang fu Zhi (Fengxiang fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Fenzhou fu Zhi (Fenzhou fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Foshan Zhongyi xiang Zhi (Foshan Zhongyi County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Fufeng xian Zhi (Fufeng County Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Fuhzou fu Zhi (Fuhzou fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Fujian Tongzhi (The General Records of Fujian Province) edited in the Wanli period. Fuliang xian Zhi (Fuliang County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Funing zhou Zhi (Funing zhou Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Fushan County Draft Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Fushan County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Fushan xian Zhi (Fushan County Records) edited in the Wanli period. Fuyang County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Fuzhou fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Fuzhou Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Fuzhou fu Zhi (Fuhzou fu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Ganquan County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Ganzhou fu Zhi (Ganzhou fu Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Gaoqing Xian Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1991). Gaoqing Xian Zhi. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju. Gaoyang xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1999). Gaoyang Xian Zhi. Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House. Gaoyang xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1998). Raoyang Xian Zhi. Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House. The General Records of Jiangxi province edited in the Guangxu period. The General Records of Provinces and Regions edited in the period of Republic of China. The General Records of Yinxian edited in the period of Republic of China. Geng, B. (1994). Fuyang He Hengshui Matou Hua Jiu. In Daming xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.), Daming Xian Zhi. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Geography Records of Xin’an edited in the period of Republic of China. Geography Records of Xiongxian edited in the Guangxu period. Gongxian County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Gu’an County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Guangde zhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Guangde zhou Zhi (Guangde zhou Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Guangde zhou Zhi (Guangde Prefecture Records) edited in the Qianlong period.

Bibliography

593

Guangdong Tongzhi (The General Records of Guangdong Province) edited in the Wanli period. Guangping fu Zhi (Guangping fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Guangshan County Draft Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Guangshan County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Guangxi Tongzhi (The General Records of Guangxi Province) edited in the Wanli period. Guangxi Tongzhi (The General Records of Guangxi Province) edited in the Yongzheng period. Guangxin Zhi (Guangxin fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Guanghzou fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Guantao County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Gucheng xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1998). Gucheng Xian Zhi. Beijing: Zhongguo duiwai fanyi Publishing House. Gucheng xian Zhi (Gucheng County Records) edited in the Wanli period. Guidong County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Guidong xian Zhi (Guidong County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Guiyang xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1994). Guiyang Xian Zhi. Beijing: Zhongguo wen shi Publishing House. Guiyang fu Zhi (Guiyang fu Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Guiyang xian Zhi (Guiyang County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Guizhou Tujing Xinzhi (New Illustrated Records of Guizhou) edited in the Hongzhi period. Gusu Zhi (Gusu Records) edited in the Zhengde period. Haizhou Zhi (Haizhou Records) edited in the Longqing period. Haizhou zhilizhou Zhi (Haizhou Zhilizhou Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Hangzhou fu Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Hangzhou fu Zhi (Hangzhou fu Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Hangzhou Zhi (Hangzhou fu Records) edited in the Chenghua period. Hanyang xian Zhi (Hanyang County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Hanzhou Zhi (Hanzhou Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Hebei sheng Dacheng xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1995). Dacheng Xian Zhi. Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House. Hebei sheng Quzhou Records bangongshi (Ed). (1997). Quzhou Xian Zhi. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Hebei sheng tangxian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1999). Tangxian Zhi. Shijiazhuang: Hebei renmin Publishing House. Hebei sheng Wuqiang xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1996). Wuqiang Xian Zhi. Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House.

594

Bibliography

Hebei Sheng Zhengding Xian Difang Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1992). Zhengding Xian Zhi. Beijing: Zhongguo chengshi Publishing House. Hehsui xian Zhi (Heshui County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Hejian fu Zhi (Hejian fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Henan fu Zhi (Henan fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Henan Zong Zhi (The General Records of Henan Province) edited in the Chenghua period. Hengshan County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Hengyang xian Zhi (Hengyang County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Hengzhou fu Zhi (Hengzhou fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Huai’an County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Huai’an fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Huai’an fu Zhi (Huai’an fu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Huaiqing fu Zhi (Huaiqing fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Huaiyang County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Huaiyin shi difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1995). Huaiyin Shi Zhi. Shanghai Academiy of Social Sciences. Huangzhou fu Zhi (Huangzhou fu Records) edited in the Hongzhi period. Huazhou Zhi (Huazhou Records) edited in the Longqing period. Hubei Tongzhi (The General Records of Hubei Province) edited in the period of Republic of China. Huguang Tujing Zhishu (Huguang Provincial Maps and Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Huili zhou Zhi (Huilizhou Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Huitong County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Hukou xian Zhi (Hukou County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Hunan Tongzhi (The General Records of Hunan Province) edited in the Guangxu period. Huzhou fu Zhi (Huzhou fu Records) edited in the Chenghua period. Huzhou fu Zhi (Huzhou fu Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Illustrated Haimen ting Records edited in the Guangxu period. Illustrated Records of Wangdu County edited in the Guangxu period. IV Local Records. Jiading County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Jianchang fu Zhi (Jianchang fu Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Jianchang fu Zhi (Jianchang fu Records) edited in the Zhengde period. Jiangle xian Zhi (Jiangle county Records) edited in the Hongzhi period. Jianglin xian Zhi (Jianglin County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Jiangnan Tongzhi (The General Records of Jiangnan) edited in the Qianlong period. Jiangning fu Zhi (Jiangning fu Records) edited in the Jiaqing period.

Bibliography

595

Jiangning xian Zhi (Jiangning County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Jiangshan xian Zhi (Jiangshan County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Jiangxi Sheng Dazhi (The General Records of Jiangxi Province) edited in the Wanli period. Jiangxi Tong Zhi (The General Records of Jiangxi Province) edited in the Jiajing period. Jiangxi Zhongyi Lu (A Collection of Loyal and Brave People of Jiangxi) edited in the Tongzhi period. Jiangyin County Records Revised in the Guangxu period. Jiangyou xian Zhi (Jiangyou County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Jianning fu Zhi (Jianning fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Jiao’ao Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Jiaxing fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Jiaxing fu Zhi (Jiaxing fu Records) edited in the Hongzhi period. Jiaxing fu Zhi (Jiaxing fu Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Jiayu Xian Zhi (Jiayu County Records) edited in the Zhengtong period. Jiexiu xian Zhi (Jiexiu County Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Jifu Tongzhi (The General Records of Jifu) edited in the Qianlong period. Jimo shi Jinkou zhen zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (2005). Jimo Shi Jinkou Zhen Zhi. Beijing: Zhongguo heping Publishing House. Jimo xian Zhi (Jimo County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Jinan fu Zhi (Jinan fu Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Jinan shi zhi Compilation Committee. (1984). Jinan Shi Zhi Ziliao. Jingjiang xian Zhi (Jingjiang County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Jingmen zhou Zhi (Jingmen zhou Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Jingning zhou Zhi (Jingning zhou Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Jingxian County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Jingzhou fu Zhi (Jingzhou fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Jingzhou Zhilizhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Jining County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Jining shi shangye ju (Ed.). (1992). Jining Shi Shangye Zhi (internal publication). Jining Zhili zhou Zhi (Jining Zhili zhou Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Jining zhou Zhi (Jining zhou Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Jining zhou Zhi (Jining Prefecture Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Jintang xian Zhi (Jintang County Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Jinjiang xian Zhi (Jinjiang County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Jishan xian Zhi (Jishan County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Jiujiang fu Zhi (Jiujiang fu Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Jixian County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Jixian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Jixian Zhi. Beijing: Zhongguo kexue jishu Publishing House.

596

Bibliography

Jixian zhi bianxiu weiyuanhui (Ed.). (1991). Jixian Zhi. Tianjin: Tianjin Social Sciences Publishing House, Nankai daxue Publishing House. Jizhou Zhi (Jizhou Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Kaihua County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Kaihua xian Zhi (Kaihua County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Koubeisan ting Zhi (Koubeisan ting Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Laiwu County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Laiyuan xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1998). Laiyuan Xian Zhi. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Laizhou fu Zhi (Laizhou fu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Langzhong Coung Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Lantian County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Lanxi County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Leiyang xian Zhi (Leiyang County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Li, Y. (1991). Yichuan Xianzhi. Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Liao zhou Zhi (Liao zhou Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Liaodong Zhi (Liaodong Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Licheng xian Zhi (Licheng County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Lifan ting Zhi (Lifan ting Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Lili Zhi (Lili Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Lin, Zhiguan. (1989). Xin’an Xianzhi (p. 134). Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Linfen County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Lingqiu xian Zhi (lingqiu County Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Lingxian Zhi (Lingxian County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Linhai County Draft Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Linjiang fu Zhi (Linjiang fu Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Linjin County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Linqing County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Linshui xian Zhi (Linshui County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Linyu County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Lingyuan Records Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1995). Lingyuan Xian Zhi. Shenyang: Liaoning guji Publishing House. Linxian County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Liyang County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Long’an fu Zhi (Long’an fu Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Longquan xian Zhi (Longquan County Records) edited in the Shunzhi period. Longyan zhou Zhi (Longyan zhou Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Longyao xian difang zhi Compilation Committee. (1998). Longyao Xian Zhi. Beijing: san lian shu dian.

Bibliography

597

Longyou County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Lu’an fu Zhi (Lu’an fu Records) edited in the Shunzhi period. Luanzhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Lujiang Zhi (Lujiang Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Lulong Records Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1994). Lulong Xian Zhi. Tianjin: Tianjin renmin Publishing House. Lushan xian Zhi (Lushan County Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Luzhou Jiuxing xiang Records edited in the Guangxu period. Luzhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Ma, X. (Ed.). (1993). The Records of Qinyang City. Bejing: Hongqi Press. Manuscript of The General Records of Hubei Province. Maozhou Zhi (Maozhou Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Mayi xian Zhi (Mayi County Records) edited in the Wanli period. Meili Zhi (Meili Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Meizhou Zhi (Meizhou Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Mengjin xian Zhi (Mengjin County Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Mengxian County Zhi Compilation Committee. (1991). Mengxian Zhi. Xi’an: Shaanxi People’s Publishing House. Mianning xian Zhi (Mianning County Records) edited in the Xianfeng period. Mianyang Zhi (Mianyang Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Mianzhou Zhi (Mianzhou Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Min Da Ji (The General Records of Min) edited in the Wanli period. Mingshan County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Miyun xian zhi Compilation Committee. (1998). Miyun Xian Zhi. Beijing: Beijing Publishing House. Nanchang fu Zhi (Nanchang fu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Nanfeng County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Nanhe xian Zhi (Nanhe County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Nankang fu Zhi (Nankang fu Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Nanning fu Zhi (Nanning fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Naxi xian Zhi (Naxi County Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Ningbo Jun Zhi (Ningbo Jun Records) edited in the Chenghua period. Ningguo County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Ningguo fu Zhi (Ningguo fu Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Ningguoxian Tongzhi (The General Records of Sichuan Province) edited in the Tongzhi period. Ninghai zhou Zhi (Ninghai zhou Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Ningxia Xin Zhi (Ningxia New Records) edited in the Hongzhi period. Pengshan County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Pengxian County Records edited in the period of Republic of China.

598

Bibliography

Pengze xian Zhi (Pengze County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Pengzhou Zhi (Pengzhou Records) edited in the Zhengde period. Pingding zhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Pingliang fu Zhi (Pingliang fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Pinglu County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Pinglu xian Zhi (Pinglu County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Pingwang Zhi (Pingwang Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Pingyin Xian Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1991). Pingyin Xian Zhi. Jinan: Jinan Publishing House. Poyang xian Zhi (Poyang County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Provincial Records of Shandong, Henan and Shanxi edited in the period of Republic of China. Pujiang County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Puxi xian Zhi (Puxi County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Qian’an xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1994). Qian’an Xian Zhi. Bejing: Zhonguo shehui Publishing House. Qianzhou Xin Zhi (Qianzhou’s New Records) edited in the Yongzheng period. Qimen xian Zhi (Qimen County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Qin zhou Zhi (Qin zhou Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Qingdao shi zhi bangongshi (Ed.). (2001). Qingdao Shi Zhi: Commerce. Beijing: Wuzhou chuanbo Publishing House. Qingfeng xian Zhi (Qingfeng County Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Qingfeng xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1990). Qingfeng Xian Zhi (p. 104). Jinan: Shandong daxue Publishing House. Qingfu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Qingjiang xian Zhi (Qingjiang County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Qingquan xian Zhi (Qingquan County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Qingquan xian Zhi (Qingquan County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Qingshen County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Qingshuihe ting Records edited in the Guangxu period. Qingxian County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Qingyuan County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Qingyun xian Zhi (Qingyun County Records) edited in the Xianfeng period. Qingzhou fu Zhi (Qingzhou fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Qingzhou fu Zhi (Qingzhou fu Records) edited in the Xianfeng period. Qinhuangdao shi haigang qu difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed). (1990). Haigang Qu Zhi (internal publication). Qinyuan xian Zhi (Qinyuan County Records) edited in the Yongzheng period. Qiongzhou fu Zhi (Qiongzhou fu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Qiongzhou Zhi (Qiongzhou Records) edited in the Jiaqing period.

Bibliography

599

Qixian Zhi (Qixian County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Quan Liao Zhi (The General Records of Quanliao) edited in the Jiajing period Ruzhou Zhi (Ruhzou Records) edited in the Zhengde period. Quwo County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Quyang xian Xin Zhi (Quyang County’s New Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Quzhou fu Zhi (Quzhou fu Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Renqiu xian Zhi (Renqiu County Records) edited in the Wanli period. Renxian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (2000). Renxian Zhi. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju. Revised Records of Laiwu County edited in the period of Republic of China. Rizhao Shi Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1994). Rizhao Shi Zhi. Jinan: Qilu shushe. Ronghe County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Rongjing County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Ruicheng County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Ruizhou fu Zhi (Ruizhou fu Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Rugao County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Rugao xian Xu Zhi (Rugao County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Runing fu Zhi (Runing fu Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Sehnghu Records edited in the Tongzhi period. Sha xian Zhi (Sha County Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Shandong Linqing shi difang shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1997). Linqing Shi Zhi. Jinan: Qilu shushe. Shandong Sheng Binzhou Shi Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Binzhou Shi Zhi. Jinan: Qilu shushe. Shandong sheng Boxing xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Boxing Xian Zhi. Jinan: Qilu shushe. Shandong sheng Changyi xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1987). Changyi Xian Zhi (internal publication). Shandong Sheng Dingtao Xian Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1999). Dingtao Xian Zhi. Jinan: Qilu shushe. Shandong sheng Dongming xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1992). Dongming Xian Zhi. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. Shandong sheng Haiyang xian zhi Compilation Committee. Haiyang Xian Zhi, internal publication. Shandong Sheng Heze Shi Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Heze Shi Zhi. Jinan: Qilu shushe. Shandong Sheng Jiaxiang Xian Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1997). Jiaxiang Xian Zhi. Jinan: Shandong renmin Publishing House.

600

Bibliography

Shandong sheng Jimo xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1991). Jimo Xian Zhi. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Shandong sheng Wendeng shi difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1996). Wendeng Shi Zhi. Beijing: Zhongguo chengshi Publishing House. Shandong sheng Xiajin xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1991). Xiajin Xian Zhi. Jinan: Shandong renmin Publishing House. Shandong Sheng Zhucheng Shi Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1992). Zhucheng Shi Zhi (pp. 119–297). Jinan: Shandong renmin Publishing House. Shandong Sheng Zouxian Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1986). Zouxian Jian Zhi (internal publication). Shandong Tong Zhi (The General Records of Shandong Province) edited in the Jiajing period. Shandong Tongzhi (The General Records of shandong Province) edited in the Yongzheng period. Shangshui xian Zhi (Shangshui County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Shangyu County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Shangyuan County and Jiangning County Records edited in the Tongzhi period. Shanxi Tong Zhi (The General Records of Shanxi Province) edited in the Jiajing period. Shanxi Tongzhi (The General Records of Shanxi Province) edited in the Wanli period. Shanxi Tongzhi (The General Records of Shanxi Province) edited in the Yongzheng period. Shanxian Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Shaowu fu Zhi (Shaowu fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Shaoxing fu Zhi (Shaoxing fu Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Shaoxing fu Zhi (Shaoxingi fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Shaoxing fu Zhi (Shaoxing fu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Shenghu Zhi (Shenghu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Shi, Q. (1993). Neihuang Xianzhi. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House. Shifang County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Shiquan xian Zhi (Shiquan County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Shizhongshan Records edited in the Guangxu period. Shizhuting Xin Zhi (Shizhuting New Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Shuangliu County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Shunchang County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Shuntian fu Zhi (Shuntian fu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Shuoping fu Zhi (Shuoping fu Records) edited in the Yongzheng period. Shouyang County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Sichuan Tongzhi (The General Records of Sichuan Province) edited in the Jiaqing period.

Bibliography

601

Sichuan Tongzhi (The General Records of Sichuan Province) edited in the Kangxi period. Sichuan Tongzhi (The General Records of Sichuan Province) edited in the Wanli period. Sichuan Zong Zhi (The General Records of Sichuan Province) edited in the Jiajing period. Sizhou Zhi (Sizhou Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Songjiang fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Songjiang fu Zhi (Songjiang fu Records) edited in the Zhengde period. Songpan County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Shuntian fu Zhi (Shuntian fu Records) edited in the Hongwu period. Suizhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Suzhou fu Zhi (Suzhou fu Records) edited in the Hongwu period. Suzhou fu Zhi (Suhzou fu Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Taicang zhou Zhi (Taicang zhou Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Taicangzhou Zhenyang County Records edited in the Xuantong period. Tainjin xian Zhi (Tainjin County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Taiping County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Taiping fu Zhi (Taipingfu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Taiyuan fu Zhi (Taiyuan fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Taizhou fu Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Taizhou fu Zhi (Taizhou fu Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Taizhou Zhi (Taizhou Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Tancheng xian Zhi (Tancheng County Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Tangxian Zhi (Tangxian County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Tianquan Zhou Zhi (Tianquan zhou Records) edited in the Xianfeng period. Tingzhou fu Zhi (Tingzhou fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Tongcheng xian Zhi (Tongcheng County Records) edited in the Shunzhi period. Tongshan xian Zhi (Tongshan County Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Tongxian Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Tongzhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Tudan xian Zhi (Tudan County Records) edited in the Wanli period. Wang, Y. & Gao, F. Zhifu Qu Xingzheng Quyu de Lishi Bianqian (Historical Changes in the Administrative Region of Zhifu). In Yantai Shi Zhifu Qu Difang Shizhi Bianweihui Bangongshi (Ed.). Difang Zhi Ziliao Yanjiu (printed version), (4). Wang Deying (Ed.). (1989). Puyang Xian Zhi. Beijing: Huayi Publishing House. Wangjiang xian Zhi (Wangjiang County Records) edited in the Wanli period. Wanquan County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Wei, J. (1987). Pingdu Xian Zhi (internal publication). Weihui fu Zhi (Weihui fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period.

602

Bibliography

Weiyuan County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Wenchuan Records Drafted in the Xuantong period. Wenjiang County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Wenxi xian Zhi (Wenxi County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Wenzhou fu Zhi (Wennzhou fu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Wujiang xian Zhi (Wujiang County Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Wujiang xian Zhi (Wujiang County Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Wujiang xian Zhi (Wujiang County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Wuqiao xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1992). Wuqiao Xian Zhi (p. 313). Beijing: Zhonguo shehui Publishing House. Wuwei xian Zhi (Wuwei County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Wuxi Jinkui County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Wuyi xian difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1998). Wuyu Xian Zhi. Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House. Wuyi xian Zhi (Wuyi County Records) edited in the Zhengde period. Wuzhou fu Zhi (Wuzhou fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Xi’an fu Zhi (Xi’an fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Xiajiang xian Zhi (Xiajiang County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Xiakou County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Xiamen shi difang zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (2004). Xiamen Shi Zhi. Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House. Xianghe xian Zhi (Xianghe County Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Xiangning County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Xiangshan County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Xiangyang fu Zhi (Xiangyang fu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Xiangyang Jun Zhi (Xiangyang Records) edited in the Tianshun period. Xiangyin xian Zhi (Xiangyin County Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Xianning xian Zhi (Xianning County Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Xianning xian Zhi (Xianning County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Xianxian County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Xiaoshan County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Xiaxian Records edited in the Guangxu period. Xin’an County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Xinchang xian Zhi (Xinchang County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Xindu County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Xinfan County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Xinghua fu Zhi (Xinghua fu Records) edited in the Hongzhi period. Xingguo zhou Zhi (Xingguo zhou Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Xingtai shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (2000). Xingtai Shi Zhi. Beijing: China Translation and Publishing Coporation.

Bibliography

603

Xinhe County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Xining xian Xin Zhi (Xining County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Xinji shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1996). Xinji Shi Ji. Beijing: Zhongguo shuji Publishing House. Xinjin xian Zhi (Xinjin County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Xinning xian Zhi (Xinning County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Xixian County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Xizhou Zhi (Xizhou Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Xuancheng County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Xuanhua fu Zhi (Xuanhua fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Xue, C. (1986). Xiuwu Xianzhi. Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Xuyao zhou Zhi (Xuyao zhou Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Xuzhou fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Ya’an County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Yang Bolin (Ed.). (1993). Fuxin Shi Zhi (Vol. 1) (p. 418). Beijing: Zhongguo Statistics Press. Yanggu Xian Difang Shi Zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1991). Yanggu Xian Zhi. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Yangzhou fu Zhi (Yanzhou fu Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Yanlin County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Yanping fu Zhi (Yanping fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Yanzhou fu Zhi (Yanzhou fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Yanzhou fu Zhi (Yanzhou fu Records) edited in the Wanli period. Yanzhou fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Yinxian County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Yiwu xian Zhi (Yiwu County Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Yixian Records edited in the Guangxu period. Yizhang County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Yizhen xian Zhi (Yizhen County Records) edited in the Longqing period. Yizheng xian Zhi (Yizheng County Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Yongchuan County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Yongchun zhou Zhi (Yongchun zhou Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Yongnian Xian Difang Zhi Compilation Committee. (2002). Yongnian Xian Zhi. Beijing: Zhonghua Book company. Yongping fu Records edited in the Guangxu period. Yongping fu Zhi (Yongping fu Records) edited in the Hongzhi period. Yongzhou fu Zhi (Yongzhou fu Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Yongzhou fu Zhi (Yongzhou fu Records) edited in the Hongwu period. Yongzhou fu Zhi (Yongzhou fu Records) edited in the Hongzhi period. Yongzhou fu Zhi (Yongzhou fu Records) edited in the Kangxi period.

604

Bibliography

Youxi xian Zhi (Youxi County Records) edited in the Congzhen period. Youyang zhou Zhi (Youyang zhou Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Yuanhe weiting Zhi (Yuanhe weiting Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Yuanzhou fu Zhi (Yuanzhou fu Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Yuci xian Zhi (Yuci County Records) edited in the Tongzhi period. Yuezhou fu Zhi (Yuezhou fu Records) edited in the Hongzhi period. Yuezhou fu Zhi (Yuezhou fu Records) edited in the Longqing period. Yuhuan ting Records edited in the Guangxu period. Yunan sheng Baoshan shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Baoshan Shi Zhi. Kunming: Yunan minzu Publishing House. Yunnan sheng Dongchuan shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1995). Dongchuan Shi Zhi. Kunming: Yunnan renmin Publishing House. Yunnan sheng Yuanjiang Hani zu Yi zu Dai zu zizhi xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Yuanjiang Hani Zu Yi Zu Dai Zu Zizhi Xian Zhi. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Yunnan Tongzhi (The General Records of Yunnan Province) edited in the Yongzheng period. Yushe County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Yuxiang County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Yuxian Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Yuyang Zhi (Yuyang Records) edited in the Jiaqing period. Zanhuang County Records edited in the Guangxu period. Zezhou fu Zhi (Zezhou fu Records) edited in the Yongzheng period. Zhang Zhenya (Ed.). (1996). The Records of Zhengyang County (p. 134, p. 374). Beijing: Fangzhi Press. Zhangde fu Zhi (Zhangde fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Zhangming Records edited in the Tongzhi period. Zhangpu xian Zhi (Zhangpu County Records) edited in the Kangxi period. Zhangqiu xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1992). Zhangqiu Xian Zhi (p. 128). Jinan: Jinan Publishing House. Zhanhua County Records edited in the period of Republic of China. Zhao Ying (Ed.). (1996). Anguo Xian Zhi. Beijing: Fang zhi Publishing House. Zhaoqing fu Zhi (Zhaoqing fu Records) edited in the Daoguang period. Zhejiang Tong Zhi (The General Records of Zhejiang Province) edited in the Jiajing period. Zhejiang Tongzhi (The General Records of Zhejiang Province) edited in the Qianlong period. Zhending fu Zhi (Zhengding fu Records) edited in the Jiajing period. Zheng, W. (Ed.). (1990). Yanshan Xian Zhi (p. 278). Haikou: Nanhai Publishing Co., Ltd. Zhengding fu Zhi (Zhengding fu Records) edited in the Qianlong period.

Bibliography

605

Zhenze xian Zhi (Zhengze County Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Zhili Anqing Jun Zhi (Zhili Anqing Records) edited in the Tianshun period. Zhili Hezhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Zhili Jiangzhou Zhi (Zhili Jiangzhou Records) edited in the Qianlong period. Zhili Zunhua zhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Zhongzhou Zhilizhou Records edited in the Tongzhi period. Zhucheng xian Zhi (Zhucheng County Records) edited in the Wanli period. Zizhou Zhilizhou Records edited in the Guangxu period. Zunhua xian zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). (1993). Zunhua Xian Zhi. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Zunyi fu Zhi (Zunyi fu Records) edited in the Daoguang period.



Archives, Historical Accounts

Anonymous. (1985). Goutong guan neiwai jingji de shangpin jisan di—Bagou: Pingquan xian jie shangye lishi diaocha. Pingquan County Literary and Historical Materials (Vol. 1) Chinese Economy. 1933. (1 -17). The Association of Industry and Commerce of Jinan (Ed.). (1982). Jiefang Qian Jinan Shi Ziben Zhuyi. Bao, F. (1986). Jiefang qian Küriye jie shangye gaishu; Liu, Z. (1986). Küriye qi minzu yu renkou, in Küriye qi zhi ziliao huibian, (1). Compilation Committee of Records of Zaozhuang Mining Bruear (Ed.). (1984). Collection of Mining Records of Zaozhuang. Compilation Committee of Zhoucun Historical Records (Ed.). (1990). Zhoucun Shangbu (Zhoucun’s Commerce). Jinan: Shandong People Press. Demographic Statistics Division, National Bureau of Statistics (Ed.). (1988). A Collection of Population Census of People’s Republic of China: 1949–1985. Beijing: China Financial and Economic Publishing House. Gongshang Ye Gaikuang. Jinan shi zhi Compilation Committee (Ed.). Jinan Shi Zhi Ziliao (Vol. 3). Department of Statistics, General Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, R.O.C. (1912). Zhonghuaminguo yuannian dierci nongshang tongji biao (The Second Agricultural and commercial statistical table). Shanghai Library. Department of Statistics, General Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, R.O.C. (1912). Zhonghuaminguo yuannian disanci nongshang tongji biao (The Third Agricultural and commercial statistical table). Shanghai Library. Department of Statistics, General Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, R.O.C. (1912). Zhonghuaminguo yuannian disici nongshang tongji biao (The Fourth Agricultural and commercial statistical table). Shanghai Library.

606

Bibliography

Department of Statistics, General Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, R.O.C. (1912). Zhonghuaminguo yuannian diwuci nongshang tongji biao (The Fifth Agricultural and commercial statistical table). Shanghai Library. Department of Statistics, General Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, R.O.C. (1912). Zhonghuaminguo yuannian diyici nongshang tongji biao (The First Agricultural and commercial statistical table). Shanghai Library. Lin, X. (1919). Shandong Ge Xian Xiangtu Diaocha Lu. Shandong Shengzhang Gongshu Jiaoyu Ke Yin Xing. Section Three of Secretariat of Administrative Committee of Hebei Province (Ed.). Survey Report of Hengshui, Hebei Province. In Vol (4) of Collection of Survey Reports of Qing Dynasty and ROC. China National Library. Shandong Jining shi zhengxie wenshi weiyuanhui (Ed.). (2000). Jining Yunhe Wenhua. Beijing: Zhongguo wen shi Publishing House. Statistical Office of the Ministry of the Interior (Ed.). (1936). The Quarterly Journal of Statistics on the Internal Affairs (1). Guohua Printing House. Wang, Z. (1987). Minguo shiqi Tianbaoshan zhen gongshang jinrong ye qingkuang. Weichang Wenshi Ziliao, (2). Wenshi CPPCC of Hengshui (Ed.). (2002). Hengshui Jingji Shiliao. Shijiazhuang: Hebei People Press. Zhonggong Weihai shiwei yanjiushi (Ed.). (1990). Weihai Shi Records: 1949–1989. Jinan: Shandong renmin Publishing House. Zhongguo Shishi Hui Lu: Shandong Longkou Zhi Xianxiang. Dongfang Zazhi, (Vol. 7), (Issue 10). (electronic version). Vol. 6 of Heyuan Xian Family Genealogy. Carving Copy in Xuantong 2nd year. Zhongwen chubanwu fuwu zhongxin (Ed.). (2013). “Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo 1953 Nian Renkou Diaocha Tongji Ziliao (Population Census of P.R.C. in 1953)”. Zhonggong Zhongyao Lishi Wenxian Ziliao Huibian, No. 30, (Vol. 138–139), Los Angeles.

Index Aksu 381 Anding 377 Anfusi 70, 81, 84, 94 Anguo 472 Anlong 416 Anlu 56, 128, 153, 280, 282, 407 Anping 86 Anqing 17, 21, 22, 37, 39, 115, 117, 152, 263, 268, 269, 288, 289, 324, 348, 396, 397 Anqiu 452, 459 Anren 53, 54 Ansai 135 Anshun 86, 88, 417, 419 Anxi (安西) 426 Anxi (安溪) 61, 62 Anxiang 50, 51 Anxin 478 Anyang 202, 482 Anyi (安义) 274 Anyi (安邑) 137, 241, 242 Anzhou 21, 22, 42, 43 Baarin 479 Bai 92 Bai Meichu 430, 462, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 473, 474, 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487, 489, 493, 496, 502 Baihe 142, 376 Baishui 376 Baixiang 43 Baling 287 Baoan 465 Baode 250, 251, 372, 374 Baodi 146, 22 Baoding 42, 43, 44, 110, 111, 112, 135, 147, 148, 197, 220, 225, 226, 309, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 464, 465, 472 Baofeng 105, 498 Baojia System 3 Baojing 58, 94, 152, 326 Baoning 69, 70, 196, 197, 219, 413 Baoqing 51, 122, 129, 142, 285, 288, 290, 309, 311, 403, 404, 406 Baoshan 255, 42 Baoying 385

barbers 1 Baxian (巴县) 412 Baxian (霸县) 470 Beipiao 225, 481 Beiping Buzhengsi 108, 128 Beiping Xingdusi 24, 76, 124, 150, 158 Bijie 71, 83, 86, 87, 88, 156, 417, 418 Binxian 449, 453, 461 Binzhou 375, 379, 449 Bishan 191 boatmen 1 Boping 452, 453, 460 Boshan 359, 360, 435, 459 Boxing 448, 453, 461 Boye 473 Bozhou 86, 87, 88   Cangshan 238 Caoxian 453, 46 Caozhou 47, 240, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 455 Catastrophe in Jin and Yu 291 Ceheng 86 Chaling 287 Chang’an 342, 348, 374, 375 Changde 19, 50, 51, 94, 121, 122, 129, 142, 143, 148, 152, 217, 287, 403, 404, 406 Changge 497 Changhua 319, 348 Changle 452, 459 Changli 471 Changming 208 Changning (常宁) 53, 54 Changning (长宁) 129, 332 Changping 469 Changqing 452, 458 Changsha 9, 51, 53, 122, 129, 142, 143, 144, 152, 240, 257, 286, 287, 309, 405, 406, 433, 434, 458, 504 Changshan (常山) 144, 257 Changshan (长山) 240, 360, 433, 434, 458 Changshu 341, 346, 387, 388 Changtai 62 Changyi 446, 447, 452, 458 Changyuan 228

608 Changzhou (常州) 17, 38, 117, 126, 151, 253, 255, 256, 257, 288, 289, 307, 309, 326, 348, 385, 386, 391, 502 Changzhou (长洲) 315, 346, 387 Changzi 246, 247 Chaoyang 224, 225, 479, 480 Chaozhou 65, 95, 129, 141, 345, 410, 411 Cheli si 93 Chen Da 1, 2 Chen Feng 8 Chen Hua 8 Chen Xuewen 392 Chen Zhongping 300 Chengbu 285 Chengchen 135 Chengde 224, 225, 331, 364, 367, 426, 427, 465, 479, 507 Chengdu 69, 70, 71, 143, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 214, 224, 304, 312, 352, 364, 412, 413, 502 Chengjiang 92, 93, 420 Chengwu 47, 453, 460 Chenzhou (郴州) 54, 283, 284, 288, 291, 309, 370, 403, 404 Chenzhou (辰州) 55, 84, 152, 286, 309, 404, 406 Chenzhou (陈州) 102, 235, 369, 484, 493 Chicheng 365, 465 Chifeng 76, 224, 480 Chiping 449, 453, 461 Chizhou 17, 37, 117, 152, 265, 266, 268, 271, 273, 289, 309, 397 Chongde 331 Chongming 254, 255, 390 Chongning 205, 206 Chongqing 206 Chongqing 69, 70, 71, 190, 191, 192, 197, 305, 381, 412, 413, 502 Chongren 277 Chongyang 57 Chongyi 185 Chuansha 347, 388, 395 Chunan 259 Chuxiong 93, 420, 421 Chuzhou (滁州) 17, 115, 116, 152, 268, 270, 288, 324, 393, 397 Chuzhou (处州) 64, 144, 153, 154, 164, 165, 260, 261, 271, 289, 392, 396

Index Cili 50, 51, 83 Cixi 262, 477 Cixian 477 Containment and Conciliation 73   Dacheng 146, 220, 469, 470 Dading 86, 416, 417, 418, 419 Dafeng 170 Dahou si 93 Dai Pan 259 Daizhou 250, 251, 372, 373, 374 Dajianlu 215, 216 Dali 92, 93, 420, 423, 456 Daming 45, 111, 112, 116, 135, 148, 228, 318, 345, 355, 365, 367, 467, 477, 478 Dancheng 496 Dangtu 266 Dangyang 9, 405 Daning dusi 24, 73, 111 Danling 209 Dantu 255, 306, 307 Danyang 388 Daozhou 52, 53, 54, 55 Dapu 129 Database 343, 344, 345 Datian 61 Datong 16, 38, 76, 77, 114, 126, 133, 135, 138, 140, 142, 149, 251, 371, 373, 374 Daxian 199 Daxing 221, 298, 470 Dayao 421 Daye 56, 279 Dayi 207, 475 Dayong 94, 287 Dayu 185, 427 Dazhu 199 De’an 38, 56, 120, 121, 122, 128, 153, 279, 280, 281, 282, 290, 308, 309, 328, 351, 352 Dechang 216, 217 Dehua 61, 62 Deng county 489, 491 Dengzhou 45, 47, 48, 105, 106, 114, 126, 238, 240, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 430, 500 Deping 449, 453, 461 Deqing (德清) 342 Deqing (德庆) 95 Dexian 436, 440, 441, 444, 459

Index Deyang 202 Dezhou 107, 240, 337, 359, 436, 440, 441, 483 Dianjiang 200 ding, registration of 8 Ding Wu Catastrophe 291 Dingnan 186, 332 Dingtao 449, 453, 457, 461 Dingxian 474 Dingxing 226 Dingyuan 191 Dingzhou 228, 365, 474 Dong’e 453, 457, 461 Dongan 221 Dongchang 20, 38, 45, 46, 107, 108, 128, 129, 235, 236, 237, 304, 324, 352, 358, 360, 361, 363, 455 Dongchuan 70, 71, 123, 420, 422, 423, 427 Dongguang 476 Dongming 477 Dongping 449, 453, 461 Dongtai 170 Dongxiang 277, 332 Duchang 141, 274 dudufu 32 Duron Noor 224 Dushikou 224, 367, 367, 427 Duyun 83, 84, 85, 88, 419   Emei 211 Enxian 453, 459 Epidemic 34, 119, 125, 132, 135, 137, 138, 140, 144, 145, 150, 153, 264, 271, 276, 508 Eryuan 92   Fan Kai 339 Fan Shuzhi 348, 387, 388, 394 Fanchang 175, 266, 267 Fancheng 280 Fang Guozhen 316 Fangcheng 491 Fangxian 404 Fanshi 250, 251 Fanxian 445, 446, 460 Feicheng 453, 460 Feixian 238, 453, 460, 462 Fengcheng 178, 273, 439 Fenghuang 152, 444 Fengnan 471

609 Fengning 225, 48 Fengqiu (封丘) 229 Fengqiu (封邱) 496 Fengrun 471 Fengtian 456 Fengxiang 49, 113, 116, 128, 135, 149, 376, 377, 378, 379 Fengyang 17, 38, 114, 115, 116, 152, 263, 270, 289, 300, 312, 324, 395, 396, 397, 502 Fenshui 259 Fenxi 137 Fenyang 501 Fenyi 182 Fenzhou 126, 149, 246, 248, 249, 371, 373, 374, 501 Fogang 411 Fu Chunguan 400 Fu Youde 90 Fufeng 377, 378 Fugou 494 Fugu 135 Fuliang 276, 4 Funing (福宁) 36, 59, 129, 141, 317, 349, 408, 410 Funing (抚宁) 222, 345, 471 Fuqing 349 Fuquan 86, 88 Fushan 47, 237, 341, 350, 387, 430, 436, 458 Fushun 211, 213, 214 Fuxin 481 Fuyang 163, 319, 473 Fuzhou (鄜州) 375 Fuzhou (涪州) 191, 192 Fuzhou (福州) 17, 36, 37, 59, 119, 128, 129, 141, 154, 155, 184, 271, 276, 277, 300, 302, 303, 309, 321, 322, 329, 332, 349, 379, 399, 401, 407, 408, 410 Fǔzhou 184, 185, 186   Ganquan 256, 257 Gansu 24, 25, 149, 295, 368, 379, 380, 381, 426, 501, 511, 512 Ganxian 155, 186, 187 Ganyu 172 Ganzhou (甘州) 79, 150, 333 Ganzhou (赣州) 38, 120, 141, 154, 186, 187, 278, 290, 309, 310, 312, 332, 399, 401 Gao Shouxian 99, 109, 220, 221, 301

610 Gaochun 256 Gaomi 444, 452, 458 Gaoping 137, 373 Gaoqing 239, 450, 452 Gaotang 449, 453, 461 Gaoxian 212, 213 Gaoyao 95, 409, 410 Gaoyou 385 Gaoyuan 239, 449, 450, 451, 453, 461 Gaozhou 65, 95, 410, 411 Ge Jianxiong 7, 95, 96 Ge Qinghua 258, 265 Geng Jingzhong 258, 265 Genghis Khan 75 Gongchang 38, 113, 135, 149, 381 Gongxian 231, 232 Great Hongwu Migration 129 Gu Cheng 32, 9 Gu Qiyuan 382 Gu’an 221, 469, 478 Guancheng 449, 453, 461 Guangchang 184, 188, 471 Guangde 17, 21, 39, 152, 175, 263, 264, 266, 268, 271, 289, 397 Guangfeng 181, 259, 398 Guangnan 93, 423 Guangrao 446, 461 Guangshan 234, 368 Guangwu 492 Guangxin 141, 144, 154, 181, 182, 276, 290, 322, 332, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402 Guangze 119 Guangzhou (光州) 234, 235, 368, 370, 485, 499 Guangzhou (广州) 65, 66, 135, 141, 333, 342, 343, 344, 350, 352, 401, 403, 409, 410, 411, 427, 504 Guantao 357, 358, 445, 452, 459 Guanxian 453, 459 Guanyang 52, 53, 58, 67, 68, 152 Guanyun 385 Guazhou 335, 346 Gucheng 318, 449, 475, 476, 478 Guian 306 Guide 101, 129, 235, 367, 370, 483, 496, 497 Guidong 55, 283 Guihua 118, 119

Index Guild Hall 368 Guilin 32, 52, 53, 67, 155, 312, 414, 415 Guisui 371, 372, 373, 374, 377, 426, 427 Guixi 181, 398 Guiyang (贵阳) 71, 83, 86, 87, 88, 156, 312, 406, 416, 417, 418, 419, 504 Guiyang (桂阳) 152, 283, 284, 288, 291, 403, 404 Guizhou dusi 83, 84, 87, 88, 90 Guizhou Xuanweisi 86, 88 Guo Jingshou 337 Guoxian 251 Gushu 483, 497   Haimen 170, 171, 172, 385, 390, 391, 392 Haining 319, 342, 348, 349 Haiyan 257 Haiyang 271, 436, 439, 458 Haizhou 172, 348, 385, 391 Hakka people 178 Han Guanghui 146, 220, 221, 363, 464 Han people 24, 73, 87, 217, 291, 479 Hanchuan 57, 153, 339 Handan 473, 477 Hangzhou 8, 126, 163, 253, 258, 262, 263, 288, 289, 302, 303, 318, 319, 321, 326, 333, 342, 348, 352, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 398, 409, 426, 502 Hankou 38, 55, 278, 279, 339, 351, 369, 401, 402, 477, 478, 481, 482, 483, 486, 487, 492 Hanyang 38, 57, 58, 143, 153, 279, 281, 290, 307, 308, 309, 339, 351, 401, 402, 404, 406, 407, 504 Hanzhong 38, 49, 113, 116, 128, 133, 149, 331, 376, 378, 379 Hanzhou 205, 206 Harqin 480 Hefeng 153 Heilongjiang 295, 511, 512 Hejian 38, 44, 111, 135, 147, 148, 227, 307, 309, 318, 338, 344, 345, 352, 355, 365, 366, 367, 466, 475, 476 Hejin 242, 243 Henei 230 Hengshan 53, 54 Hengshui 467, 473

Index Hengyang 54, 282, 283, 402, 403 Hengzhou (横州) 68 Hengzhou (衡州) 53, 54, 55, 152, 282, 283, 288, 309, 311, 402, 404, 405, 406 Heping 129, 328 Heqing 93 hereditary slaves 1 Heshui 380 Heshun 250 Heze 451, 453, 455, 461 Hezhou 17, 79, 116, 152, 175, 176, 270, 271, 397, 427 Historical Demography 11, 12 Hongya 211 Horqin 74, 75 Hotan 381 Hou Xuanjie 414 Hou Yangfang 10, 125 Houguan 303 Household certificate 6, 15, 16, 33 Household person 65, 242 Household registers, compilation and examination of 1, 2 Hu Zaiwei 267 Huahu 27, 28, 29, 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, 199, 204, 212, 213 Huai’an 22, 114, 151, 308, 309, 333, 334, 348, 383, 384, 385, 390, 391, 465 Huaian 172, 223 Huailai 223, 465 Huaiqing 39, 100, 103, 104, 116, 129, 148, 230, 231, 324, 370, 485, 492, 495 Huaiyang 316, 383, 484, 486, 493 Huangchuan 368, 485 Huangxian 359, 436, 437, 459 Huangzhou (黄州) 19, 38, 55, 120, 121, 122, 128, 143, 153, 279, 280, 281, 290, 307, 308, 309, 312, 351, 407 Huangzhou (晃州) 152 Huantai 453, 458 Huating 49, 423 Huaxian 229, 496 Huayin 378 Hui people 40, 150, 291, 421, 443 Hui’an 62 Huichang 186, 187 Huilai 129

611 Huili 216, 251 Huimin 449, 453, 455, 460 Huitong 285, 336, 337 Huixian 496 Huizhou (徽州) 15, 17, 22, 39, 141, 176, 267, 268, 289, 309, 312, 316, 328, 397 Huizhou (惠州) 38, 65, 95, 123, 129, 410, 411 Hukou 180 Hunyuan 140, 142 Huojia 496 Huozhou 246, 372, 374 Huzhou 39, 63, 126, 166, 258, 263, 288, 289, 305, 306, 309, 319, 321, 322, 338, 342, 349, 392, 393, 394, 396   Inner Mongolia 24, 73, 74, 75, 76, 295, 372   Ji Ying 398 Ji’an 128, 141, 154, 183, 184, 277, 278, 288, 290, 399, 401 Jiading 69, 70, 140, 210, 212, 213, 214, 254, 255, 347, 413 Jiajiang 211 Jian’an 119 Jianchang 82, 83, 119, 144, 154, 179, 184, 188, 217, 225, 274, 275, 288, 290, 308, 309, 312, 321, 322, 331, 399, 401, 471, 480 Jiande 162, 259 Jiang Tao 8 Jiang Weitao 369, 388 Jiangdu 256 Jianghua 52, 53, 54 Jiangkou 349, 418 Jiangle 60, 61 Jiangling 405 Jiangning 10, 151, 167, 168, 169, 172, 256, 257, 288, 299, 348, 382, 386, 391, 426, 502 Jiangpu 167, 168, 256 Jiangshan 144, 257, 259, 260, 393 Jiangxia 57, 243, 300, 302, 304 Jiangxian 243, 302 Jiangyin 141, 151, 255, 386, 388 Jiangyong 52 Jiangyou 208 Jiangzhou (江州) 68, 69, 242, 243, 244, 371, 372, 374 Jiangzhou (绛州) 242, 243, 244, 371, 372, 374

612 Jianning 17, 32, 60, 119, 271, 272, 288, 290, 309, 319, 321, 322, 350, 408, 410 Jianshui 421, 504 Jianyang 349, 35 Jianzhou 206 Jiaohe 476 Jiaoji Railway 430, 431, 444, 446 Jiaonan 463 Jiaoxian 437, 458, 463 Jiaozhou 359, 360, 432 Jiaozuo 486 Jiashan 257, 328, 331, 388 Jiaxiang 451, 453, 460, 462, 463 Jiaxing 39, 63, 126, 141, 153, 154, 161, 162, 257, 258, 263, 288, 289, 305, 306, 309, 310, 319, 322, 328, 331, 333, 334, 335, 338, 342, 349, 392, 393, 394, 396 Jiayin Rebellion 132 Jiaying 410, 411 Jiayu 56, 80, 81 Jidong 237 Jiexiu 248, 249, 501 Jihe 444 Jilin 295, 511, 512 Jimo 237, 359, 360, 436, 437, 438, 458 Jinan 43, 45, 47, 48, 108, 149, 150, 239, 240, 304, 309, 312, 357, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 430, 431, 432, 433, 435, 436, 438, 441, 442, 443, 500 Jinchi si 93 Jingan 178 Jingbin Huang 329 Jingde 174, 265 Jingdong 93, 421, 423, 471 Jingling 56, 339 Jingmen 58, 153, 280, 282, 405, 406, 407 Jingnan Battle 45 Jingning 165 Jingning 260 Jingshan 58, 163 Jingshi 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30, 34, 38, 41, 75, 77, 80, 106, 108, 114, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 157, 221, 307, 323, 324, 326, 339, 348, 352, 355, 508, 511, 512 Jingxian 227, 478 Jingzhou (荆州) 128, 153, 280, 282, 290, 291, 309, 311, 312, 339, 352, 405, 407 Jingzhou (景州) 227, 228

Index Jingzhou (靖州) 55, 58, 152, 285, 286, 288 Jinhua 64, 126, 141, 144, 153, 154, 166, 259, 260, 263, 289, 392, 393, 394, 396 Jining 47, 237, 336, 357, 358, 360, 361, 362, 363, 385, 427, 436, 437, 442, 443, 444, 456, 459, 468 Jinjiang 62, 317 Jingjiang 31, 62, 255, 256 Jinkui 99, 255 Jinshan 385, 386 Jintang 205, 206 Jinxi 277 Jinxian 177, 178, 273 Jinxiang 47, 449, 453, 461 Jinzhai 499 Jishan 242, 243, 372 Jishui 183, 277, 348 Jiujiang 38, 120, 141, 149, 179, 180, 273, 274, 288, 290, 399, 401 Jixian 470, 474 Jixian (蓟县) 470 Jixian (冀县) 474 Jiyang 447, 453, 460 Jiyuan 230 Jizhou 227, 228, 365, 366, 473 John King Fairbank 11 Junggar 150 Junxian 496 Jurong 168 Juxian 446, 461 Juye 47, 453, 460   Kaifeng 16, 31, 32, 100, 101, 102, 116, 148, 232, 233, 312, 329, 367, 370, 482, 484, 492, 500 Kaihua 93, 144, 165, 166, 257, 393, 421, 423 Kangding 215 Kaocheng 229 Kashgar 381 Kazuo 480 Koreans 73 Kuaiji 163, 305 Kuizhou 69, 70, 200, 413 Kunshan 141, 346, 387, 388 Kuriye 479   Laiwu 21, 22, 448, 453, 460 Laiyang 47, 436, 452, 458, 463

Index Laizhou 20, 45, 46, 105, 106, 107, 114, 116, 126, 237, 238, 338, 359, 361, 362, 363, 440, 500 Lan Yu 90 Langzhong 196 Lantian 376 Lanxi 64, 248 Lanxian 248 Lanzhou 379 Le’an 277 Leibo 212, 213 Leiyang 53 Leizhou 65, 410, 411 Leling 460, 462 Leping 138, 249, 250 Leting 5, 471 Li Guoqi 392 Li Shixian 271 Li Shiyao 405 Li Zicheng 125, 137, 142 Lian Fan 335 Lianghu 27 Liangxiang 146, 220, 469 Liangzhou 33, 80, 150, 379, 380 Lianhua 277 Lianshan 411, 412 Lianzhou (连州) 129, 410, 411 Lianzhou (廉州) 38, 65 Liaocheng 46, 107, 237, 358, 360, 444, 445, 453, 460 Liaodong Dusi 72, 73, 134, 509 Liaoning 24, 41, 72, 295, 480, 481, 511, 512 Liaozhou 138, 149, 250, 372, 373, 374 Licheng 357, 431, 458 Lifan 215, 217, 218 Lijia System 1, 6, 7, 31, 45 Lijiang 93, 420, 423 Lijin 449, 453, 460 Liling 154 Lin Xiuzhu 428 Lin’an 93, 144, 318, 319, 348, 420, 421, 422, 423, 504 Lincang 91 Linchuan 277 Linfen 137, 245 Lingling 52 Lingqiu 140 Lingtai 49

613 Lingui 414 Lingxian (陵县) 444, 452, 459 Lingxian (酃县) 282, 283 Lingyuan 480, 481 Linhai 262 Linhao 300 Linhuai 300 Linjiang 154, 182, 188, 274, 275, 288, 290, 308, 309, 310, 399, 400, 401 Linjin 137, 243, 244 Linli 287 Linqing 108, 235, 236, 237, 336, 337, 357, 358, 360, 362, 363, 385, 427, 443, 444, 455, 459, 483 Linqu 448, 452, 459 Linru 484 Linshui 194 Lintao 38, 49, 113, 116, 149, 324, 331 Linxi 481 Linxian (临县) 230, 498 Linxian (林县) 246, 248, 249 Linxiang 287 Linyi (临沂) 238, 455, 460, 497 Linyi (临邑) 453, 461 Linying 497 Linyu 222, 468 Linzhang 230 Linzi 452, 459 Liping 83, 84, 88, 417, 419 Lishui (丽水) 164, 165, 260 Lishui (溧水) 168, 256 Liu Cheng-yun 189 Liu Xianting 339 Liu Xin 95 Liu Yi 72 Liu Zhiwei 6, 7, 8 Liu’an 269, 270, 289, 397 Liuhe 167, 168, 156 Liuyang 142, 143, 144, 154, 287 Liuzhou 66, 414, 415 Lixian 473 Liyang 255, 388 Lizhou (黎州) 70 Lizhou (澧州) 50, 51, 152, 287, 336, 404, 406 Long’an 208, 209, 413 Longchang 213 Longchuan 91, 92, 93 Longde 49

614 Longhai Railway 484 Longli 83, 88, 417 Longmen 465 Longquan 64, 74, 144, 260 Longyan 62, 271, 272, 290, 408, 410 Longyou 259 Longzhou 68, 69, 82 Lu’an 126, 140, 142, 246, 247, 371, 374 Luan Chengxian 22, 3 Luanping 224, 225, 480 Luanxian 471 Luanzhou 478 Lueyang 49 Lulong 345, 466 Luo Ergang 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 34 Luo Yixing 343, 409 Luochuan 9 Luoding 410, 411 Luojiang 201, 202 Luoning 489 Luoshan 234, 491 Lushan 368, 498 Luxi 331 Luyi 496, 497 Luzhou (庐州) 17, 115, 116, 152, 263, 269, 289, 373, 395, 397, 502 Luzhou (泸州) 69, 70, 192, 193, 413 Luzhou (潞州) 149, 368   Ma Jinzhong 143 Ma Shunping 33, 79 Macheng 9, 128, 143 Mahu 70, 71, 123 Malthus 1 Man Zhimin 125 Mangshi si 93 Maogong 215, 217, 218 Maozhou 215, 217, 218, 413, 414 Matteo Ricci 315 Mayi 21, 22 Meizhou 69, 70, 209, 210, 214, 413 Mengding 93 Menghua 93, 421, 423 Mengjin 232, 495 Menglian 93 Mengxian 230, 495 Mengyin 461 Mianning 216

Index Mianyang (绵阳) 202 Mianyang (沔阳) 19, 38, 55, 56, 153, 328, 339 Mianzhou 201, 202, 413 Miao people 285 Mingshan 215, 216 Minhou 407, 408 Minxian 302 Miyang 489, 49 Miyun 470 Mongolia 74, 75, 364, 509 Mu Ying 90 Muping 436, 44 musicians 1 Muyang 172   Nahachu 73, 74, 76 Naiman 479 Nan’an 38, 120, 185, 278, 290, 309, 399, 401, 402, 427 Nanchang 116, 120, 128, 141, 177, 178, 179, 187, 273, 274, 288, 290, 300, 302, 303, 304, 308, 322, 329, 398, 400, 401, 402, 504 Nancheng 144, 308 Nanchong 194 Nanfeng 144, 178, 275 Nangong 227 Nanjing 17, 31, 109, 116, 117, 126, 135, 151, 167, 169, 253, 288, 298, 299, 300, 324, 326, 332, 382, 398, 426, 511 Nankang 120, 179, 185, 188, 274, 288, 290, 399, 401, 402, 427 Nanle 477 Nanling 54, 141, 174, 265 Nanning 67, 68, 174, 414, 415 Nanping 61 Nantong 170 Nanxian 347 Nanxiong 65, 141, 410, 411 Nanyang 38, 100, 101, 104, 105, 113, 116, 148, 233, 234, 235, 324, 361, 368, 370, 484, 487, 489, 491 Nanzhao 490 Naxi 193 Neihuang 498 Neijiang 196 Neixiang 490 new population of males, females, and children 10

Index Nian army 280 Ningbo 63, 126, 144, 164, 262, 263, 289, 312, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396 Ningcheng 76 Ningdu 184, 185, 186, 278, 290, 399, 401 Ningguo 17, 152, 174, 176, 264, 265, 266, 268, 271, 289, 309, 397 Ninghai 47 Ninghua 59 Ningjin 475 Ningwu 250, 251, 372, 374 Ningxia 25, 78, 150, 333, 381 Ningxiang 249, 318 Ningyang 452, 458 Ningyuan 52, 53, 215, 216, 412, 413, 414 Ningzhou 120, 278 Nurgan dusi 73, 509 nuzhen 73   Ouning 60   Penglai 436, 439, 458 Pengshan 209, 21 Pengxi 195 Pengxian 205, 206 Pengze 273 Pengzhou 69 Pingba 83, 86, 87, 88 Pingding 138, 247, 249, 250, 374 Pingdu 445, 446, 452, 459 Pinggu 146, 220, 469 Pinghu 257, 328, 331, 388 Pingjiang 51, 142, 144 Pingle  38, 68, 155, 414, 415 Pingliang 49, 50, 113, 116, 149, 380 Pinglu 241, 242, 372 Pingquan 225, 48 Ping-ti Ho 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 26, 33, 34, 100 Pingwu 208 Pingxiang 182 Pingyang 39, 126, 133, 135, 137, 149, 244, 245, 246, 248, 371, 372, 373, 374, 501 Pingyao 248, 501 Pingyin 446, 457, 461 Pingyuan (平原) 240, 436, 441, 459 Pingyuan (平远) 129, 417 Pingyue 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 156, 419

615 Pizhou 172 plagues 117, 125, 133, 137, 139, 146, 147, 149, 150, 156, 267, 275, 294, 295 population history 11, 12 Poyang 141, 276 Pu’an 83, 84, 86, 88, 419 Pu’er 91, 93, 421, 422, 423 Pucheng 142 Pujiang (蒲江) 207 Pujiang (浦江) 64 Putai 446, 449, 460 Putian 60, 142, 349, 408 Puxi 56 Puxian (蒲县) 137 Puxian (濮县) 445, 446, 460 Puyang 445, 478 Puzhou 137, 243, 244, 252, 331, 371, 374   Qian’an 222, 471 Qiantang 302, 303 Qianzhou 152, 375, 379 Qidong 344, 390, 451, 452, 453, 458 Qihe 452, 453, 454, 458 Qijiang 191 Qimen 267 Qin county 486 Qingcheng 239, 450, 451, 453, 461 Qingdao 238, 428, 430, 431, 432, 435, 436, 437, 445, 456 Qingfeng 318, 478 Qinghai 215, 295, 511, 512 Qinghe 45, 384, 477 Qingjian 135 Qingjiang 182, 183, 188, 275, 383, 384, 385 Qingliu 118, 332 Qinglong 88, 222, 336, 344 Qingping 83, 88, 90, 453, 459 Qingquan 282, 402, 403 Qingshen 209, 21 Qingtian 165, 26 Qingxian 226, 227 Qingyang 49, 50, 113, 116, 149, 324, 380 Qingyuan (清苑) 363 Qingyuan (庆元) 260 Qingyuan (庆远) 32, 66, 137, 141, 364, 414, 415 Qingyun 226, 227

616 Qingzhen 86, 88 Qingzhou 20, 38, 43, 45, 46, 107, 126, 149, 150, 239, 304, 307, 309, 338, 358, 359, 360, 361, 363 Qinhuangdao 465, 468 Qinshui 137, 373 Qinyang 485 Qinyuan 138 Qinzhou (秦州) 380 Qinzhou (沁州) 138, 142, 149, 246, 247, 374 Qiongzhou (邛州) 207, 208, 413 Qiongzhou (琼州) 65, 95, 99, 123, 410, 411 Qiuxian (丘县) 235 Qiuxian (邱县) 446, 461 Qixia 445, 452 Qixian (淇县) 232 Qixian (淇县) 247, 496 Qiyang 52 Qizhou 278 Quangping 467, 477 Quanzhou (全州) 52, 53, 58, 67, 68, 152, 284 Quanzhou (泉州) 61, 62, 119, 155, 271, 317, 322, 326, 408, 410 Queshan 487 Qufu 47, 444, 452, 458 Qujing 93, 144, 420, 422, 427 Quwo 245 Quyang 21, 22, 43 Quzhou (曲周) 477 Quzhou (衢州) 144, 154, 165, 166, 157, 259, 260, 263, 289, 290, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396   Raoping 129 Raoyang 475 Raozhou 128, 141, 144, 154, 181, 276, 290, 312, 332, 399, 401, 402, 427 Refugees 3, 31, 73 regional population 12, 37 Rehe 512 relocation of the capital 298, 411, 511 Renhe 302, 303 Renhuai 418, 419 Renqiu 338, 476 Renxian 476 Rizhao 46, 107, 446, 455, 456, 460 Rongcheng 142, 436, 439, 458, 473 Ronghe 244, 28

Index Rongjiang 417, 418 Rongxian 211, 212, 213 Rugao 170, 171 Rui’an 144 Ruicheng 241, 242 Ruijin 399 Ruili 91 Ruizhou 128, 154, 180, 181, 274, 288, 290, 309, 401, 402 Runan 483 Runing 38, 100, 104, 405, 113, 128, 133, 148, 233, 234, 235, 324, 368, 370, 483, 491 Ruzhou 101, 105, 113, 368, 370, 484, 498   Sangzhi 94, 152, 286 Sanshui 331 Sanyang 331 sea trade restrictions 61 Shaanxi dusi 77, 79, 124, 129, 150, 509 Shaanxi xingdusi 24, 33, 80, 124, 129, 150, 158 Shang Kexi 144 Shangcai 492 Shanggao 154, 18 Shanghai 9, 38, 255, 257, 262, 330, 335, 341, 384, 391, 392, 430, 456, 511 Shanghang 118 Shanghe 359, 453, 460 Shangnan 331 Shangqiu 483, 484, 590 Shangrao 181, 399 Shangshui 369, 486, 493, 494 Shangyou 185, 189 Shangyu 163, 167, 168, 261, 298, 299, 321, 330, 382 Shangyuan 167, 168, 298, 299, 382 Shangzhou 376, 378, 379 Shanhaiguan 222, 468 Shanxi xingdusi 24, 99, 129 Shanxian 453, 46 Shan county 47, 489 Shanyang 308 Shanyin 163, 305 Shanzhou 485 Shaowu 59, 119, 271, 272, 288, 290, 309, 317, 322, 408, 410 Shaoxing 63, 126, 153, 163, 164, 261, 262, 263, 288, 289, 305, 319, 321, 322, 326, 330, 392, 393, 395, 396

Index Shaozhou 65, 129, 410, 411 Shashi 405 Shaxian 60, 61 Shengxian 163, 321, 330 Shenxian 446 Shen 365 Shenzhou 228, 365, 366, 475 Shexian 230, 497 Shi Dakai 257, 274, 282, 284, 285, 286 Shi Hongshuai 375 Shicheng 278, 315, 316, 399 Shidai 265, 266 Shifang 204, 205 Shilou 248 Shimen 50, 51, 258, 342, 394 Shinan 407 Shiqian 88, 419 Shiquan 49, 208, 377, 378 Shizhou 32, 58, 94, 129, 153 Shizhu 70, 71, 200, 201, 413, 414 Shouchang 259 Shouguang 239, 452, 459 Shouyang 250 Shuangjiang 91 Shuangliu 203, 204, 205, 206 Shulu 42, 225, 226, 472 Shunchang 61, 272 Shunde 44, 112, 135, 148, 228, 309, 365, 367, 466, 476 Shunning 93 Shunqing 69, 70, 194, 195 Shuntian 41, 108, 109, 126, 135, 146, 147, 220, 221, 299, 352, 365, 366, 367, 426, 469, 500 Shunyi 146, 22 Shuoping 138, 251, 252, 372, 374 Shuozhou 142 Si’en 414, 415 Sicheng 68, 415 Sichuan dusi 81, 82 Sichuan xingdusi 25, 82, 83 Sihong 176 Siling 68, 69 Siming 68 Sinan 84, 85, 87, 88, 417, 419 Single Whip Method 7 Sishui (汜水) 492 Sishui (泗水) 47, 453, 460

617 Sizhou (思州) 85, 87, 88, 417, 418, 419 Sizhou (泗州) 176, 270, 289, 397 Skinner, G. William 189 Smallpox 138 Social schools 73 Songjiang 17, 21, 38, 82, 117, 126, 135, 151, 173, 254, 257, 289, 326, 335, 341, 347, 348, 386, 390, 391 Songpan 81, 82, 215, 217, 218 Songtao 418, 419 Songxi 60 Songxian 494, 495 Standard Administrative Regions 35 Standard Point of Time 33 Sui’an 162 Suide 78, 376, 379 Suiding 194, 198, 199, 413 Suiping 234 Suixian 497 Suizhou 56, 143, 279, 280 Suning 476 Suqian 172 Suzhou (苏州) 7, 10, 17, 33, 79, 83, 117, 126, 151, 167, 172, 173, 253, 254, 257, 263, 288, 289, 315, 324, 326, 329, 330, 332, 333, 336, 341, 345, 347, 348, 352, 382, 383, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 398, 409, 485, 502 Suzhou (肃州) 380   Tai’an 240, 358, 359, 360, 363, 444, 452, 458 Taicang 141, 254, 255, 257, 289, 315, 316, 324, 330, 347, 385, 386 Taigu 142, 247 Taihe 277 Taikang 493 Taining 74, 119 Taiping 17, 66, 67, 137, 152, 174, 175, 199, 200, 245, 245, 266, 267, 351, 352, 397, 413, 414, 415 Taipingtianguo 258, 26 Taiwan 95, 96, 124, 158, 189, 408, 410, 484, 509 Taixing 170 Taiyuan 16, 114, 135, 138, 140, 149, 246, 247, 248, 249, 312, 329, 371, 373, 374, 501 Taizhou (台州) 63, 144, 166, 262, 263, 289, 392, 393, 396

618 Taizhou (泰州) 170, 385 tan ding ru mu 5 Tan Qixiang 35, 87, 133, 343 Tancheng 142, 238, 449, 453, 461 Tanghe 488 Tangshan 38, 223, 468 Tangxian 233, 473 Tangyi 446, 461, 497 Tangyin 497 Taoyuan 349 Tartar 74, 75 tax/corvee reform 5 Tengxian 444, 452, 458 Tengyue 93, 421, 423 Three-clan Rebellion 144, 145 Tianjin 38, 41, 107, 111, 147, 148, 226, 227, 333, 334, 339, 365, 366, 367, 368, 385, 426, 431, 444, 464, 466, 468, 470, 472, 473, 476, 483, 492, 494, 500 Tianquan 82, 215, 216 Tianzhou 68 Tibetan 25, 81, 96, 218 Tientsin-Pukow Railway 430, 431, 434, 440, 441, 442, 444 Tingzhou 59, 118, 153, 155, 271, 272, 290, 309, 317, 319, 321, 332, 332, 408, 410 Togus Temur 74 Tongan 62 Tongbai 489 Tongcheng 56 Tongchuan 69, 70, 195, 413 Tonglu 259 Tongren 88, 418, 419 Tongshan 56, 57, 142, 279 Tongxian 258, 328, 331, 468 Tongxiang 258, 328, 331 Tongzhou (通州) 170, 171, 333, 337, 385, 391, 468 Tongzhou (同州) 375, 376, 377, 378, 379 Tujia nation 129   Urumqi 150   Vladivostok 468   Wan’an 183 Wandian 93 Wang Di 189

Index Wang Ke 96 Wang Shida 1 Wang Shixing 340 Wang Shizhen 106 Wang Zhenzhong 383 Wang’Ao 315 Wangdu 478 Wangjiang 348 Wanping 220, 221, 298 Wanquan 24, 76, 77, 124, 150, 158, 465, 469, 509 Wanxian 473 Wanzai 182, 188 Waxieba 120, 128 wei schools 73 Wei yingtao 412 Weichang 479 Weicheng 84 Weihui 100, 103, 148, 149, 229, 324, 370, 482, 483, 496 Weisuo 32, 5 Weixian (威县) 477 Weixian (潍县) 359, 431, 432, 433, 446, 459 Wei county/Weixian 223, 365, 465 Weiyuan 91, 93, 211, 212 Weizhou 223, 365 Wen’an 220, 47 Wendeng 47, 436, 438 Wenjiang 205, 206 Wenshang 449, 453, 461 Wenxi 242, 243, 372, 373 Wenxian 230, 495 Wenzhou 63, 144, 166, 263, 392, 393, 396 Wu Sangui 125, 132, 144 Wu’an 230 Wuchang 56, 57, 121, 153, 278, 279, 281, 282, 288, 290, 300, 302, 304, 312, 329, 351, 401, 402, 407 Wucheng (乌程) 306 Wucheng (武城) 235, 331, 398, 400, 402, 445, 452, 459 Wudi 446, 46 Wuding  93, 240, 358, 359, 360, 361, 363, 455 Wufeng 153 Wuhu 70, 266 Wujiang 340, 341, 346, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389 Wujin 388

Index Wulong 191 Wumeng 70, 71, 123 Wuning 120, 178 Wuqiang 345, 475 Wuqiao 318, 441, 476 Wuqing 221, 338, 342, 394 Wutai 251 Wuwei 379 Wuxi 38, 255, 386, 387, 388, 391 Wuxian 386, 387 Wuyang 489 Wuyi (武义) 64 Wuyi (武邑) 474 Wuzhi 230, 495 Wuzhou 66, 67, 414, 415, 432   Xi’an 49, 113, 116, 128, 135, 149, 259, 312, 329, 331, 339, 374, 375, 376, 378, 379, 493, 495, 501 Xia Yuanji 79, 85 Xiajiang 182, 275 Xiajin 235, 445, 447, 452, 459 Xiakou 402 Xiangcheng (襄城) 497 Xiangcheng (项城) 494 Xianghe 42, 469 Xiangning 244, 245, 246, 249, 372 Xiangshan 262 Xiangtan 142, 143 Xiangyang 19, 30, 38, 55, 56, 121, 128, 143, 153, 279, 280, 282, 290, 304, 309, 328, 329, 406, 407 Xiangyin 318 Xianju 144, 262, 393 Xianning 56, 279, 374, 375 Xianxian 476, 478 Xianyou 60, 142, 408 Xiaogan 56, 128, 153, 279 Xiaoshan 163, 261, 321, 330 Xiaoyi 248 Xiaxian 241, 242 Xiayi 497 Xichang 216 Xichong 194 Xichuan 488, 489, 590 Xiezhou 241, 242, 243, 244 Xihua 486, 493 Xin’an 231, 347, 478, 495

619 Xinchang 154, 163, 180, 261, 330, 342 Xincheng 319, 342, 348, 349, 394 Xindu 186, 187, 204, 205 Xinfan 205, 206 Xinfeng (新丰) 328 Xinfeng (信丰) 141, 186 Xing’an 276, 351, 352, 376, 377, 378, 379, 398, 399, 427 Xingan 182, 275 Xingguo 56, 154, 186 Xinghua 60, 142, 155, 224, 272, 349, 385, 408, 410 Xingwen 212, 213 Xingxian 138, 14 Xingyang 492 Xingyi 86, 416, 419 Xingzi 274 Xinhe 227, 478 Xinhui 141 Xining 150, 198, 223, 465 Xinji 472 Xinjian 177, 178, 273, 303 Xinjiang 75, 80, 81, 150, 158, 381, 398, 509 Xinjin 205, 206, 303 Xinning 198 Xintai 448, 453, 460 Xintian 53, 83 Xinxiang 483, 496 Xinyang (新阳) 387 Xinyang (信阳) 483 Xinye 489 Xinyi (新沂) 172 Xinyi (信宜) 95 Xinyu 182 Xinzheng 493 Xinzhou 251, 372, 373, 374 Xiongxian 473, 478 Xiushui 257, 306 Xiuwu 230, 231, 495 Xixian (息县) 499 Xixian (隰县) 246 Xixiang 49 Xiyang 249 Xizhou 137, 245, 246, 372, 373, 374 Xu Da 337 Xu Panqing 343 Xu Tan 357, 358, 369 Xuancheng 174, 264, 265

620 Xuanhua 41, 223, 364, 365, 366, 367, 373, 427, 465, 500 Xugou 247 Xundian 93 Xunyang 49 Xunyi 331 Xunzhou 38, 68, 414, 415 Xuyong 194, 413 Xuzhou (徐州) 69, 70, 212, 213, 214, 413 Xuzhou (许州) 235, 370, 483, 497 Xuzhou (叙州) 17, 114, 115, 116, 151, 172, 383, 385, 390, 391, 484, 502   Ya’an 215 Yan’an 49, 78, 113, 135, 149, 375, 377, 378, 379 Yancheng 239, 487 Yang Yiqing 78 Yangcheng 137 Yanggu 360, 450, 453, 461 Yangquan 249 Yangshuo 67 Yangwu 231 Yangxin 453, 46 Yangzhou 17, 114, 116, 140, 151, 169, 170, 253, 256, 257, 289, 316, 333, 334, 335, 346, 348, 352, 355, 383, 385, 391, 502 Yanhu 27 Yanjin 83, 229 Yanling 232, 492 Yanping 60, 61, 119, 271, 272, 290, 317, 319, 321, 322, 350, 408, 410 Yanqing 39, 112, 465 Yanshan 41, 42 Yantai 428, 430, 436, 440, 445, 456 Yanting 195 Yanyuan 216 Yanzhou (严州) 63, 153, 162, 259, 263, 289, 392, 393, 395, 396 Yanzhou (兖州) 20, 30, 38, 45, 47, 108, 116, 240, 259, 288, 304, 309, 336, 338, 358, 359, 360, 363 Yao People 53, 55, 95, 283 Yao’an 93 Yaozhou 376 Yarkent 381 Yazhou 70, 71, 156, 215, 216, 413 Ye Mengzhu 386

Index Yellow Registers 2, 6, 7, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33 Yengisar 381 Yexian 436, 440, 458 Ye county 491 Yibin 213 Yichang 153, 407, 433 Yichuan 495 Yichun 182 Yidu 307, 452, 455, 458 Yihuang 277 Yilong 69 Yingjiang 91 Yingjing 215 Yingshan (应山) 56, 143, 280 Yingshan (营山) 69, 194 Yingtian 17, 22, 39, 117, 126, 135, 151, 152, 167, 298, 326, 345 Yingzhou 263, 269, 270, 271, 395, 396, 397, 502 Yining 178, 273 Yinxian 164, 262, 392 Yishui 46, 429, 453, 460, 462, 463 Yiwu 64, 166 Yi county 267 Yixian (易县) 459 Yixian (峄县) 434, 435 Yixing 388, 409 Yiyang 105 Yiyang 276, 398 Yizhang 283 Yizhen 231, 335 Yizheng 170, 256, 384, 385 Yizhou (沂州) 238, 239, 240, 250, 339, 359, 360, 363, 455 Yizhou (易州) 228, 365, 366, 471 Yongan 52 Yongbei 421, 423 Yongchang 93, 42 Yongcheng 496 Yongchuan 29, 192 Yongchun 61, 62, 271, 272, 408, 410 Yongding 94, 118, 119, 332 Yongfeng 277 Yonghe 137 Yongjia 144 Yongming 52

Index Yongnian 467, 477 Yongning 70, 71, 83, 89, 91, 232, 246, 249, 277, 328, 369, 417 Yongping 38, 44, 110, 128, 135, 148, 222, 309, 310, 318, 345, 365, 366, 466, 467, 471 Yongqing 146, 220, 221, 365 Yongshun 58, 94, 152, 286, 288, 291, 326, 406 Yongsui 152 Yongxiu 179 Yongzhou 13, 19, 20, 21, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 67, 120, 152, 284, 309, 404, 406 Youxi 60, 61 Youyang 70, 71, 197, 198, 413 Yuan Jie 101, 121 Yuanhe 387, 388 Yuanjiang 91, 93, 421 Yuanqu 137, 243 Yuanwu 231 Yuanyang 279, 496 Yuanzhou (沅州) 152, 286, 404, 406 Yuanzhou (袁州) 154, 182, 188, 275, 276, 290, 309, 399, 401, 402 Yucheng 436, 441, 459 Yuci 247 Yudu 154 Yuechi 194 Yuexi 216 Yuezhou 19, 50, 51, 58, 122, 287, 288, 290, 309, 311, 403, 404, 406 Yuhang 316, 319, 348 Yuhuan 166, 263 Yulin (榆林) 78, 135, 377, 379 Yulin (玉林) 414, 415 Yuncheng (运城) 142, 143, 373, 484 Yuncheng (郓城) 452, 458 Yunhe 144, 164, 165, 442 Yunlong 92 Yunmeng 56, 128, 143, 279, 280 Yunmeng Marsh 128 Yunxi 279 Yun county 93 Yunxian 404 Yunyang 121, 128, 143, 153, 279, 280, 281, 282, 290, 329, 404, 407 Yuqian 319, 321 Yushan 181, 398, 402 Yushe 250, 373 Yutai 47, 360, 453, 460

621 Yuxian 233, 243, 244 Yuxiang 243, 244 Yuyao 163, 33   Zang Lihe 343 Zanhuang 478 Zezhou 126, 137, 149, 246, 247, 368, 371, 373, 374 Zhang Guoxiong 51 Zhang Huang 338, 36 Zhang Jianjun 381 Zhang Jinkui 99 Zhang Shicheng 315, 316 Zhang Xianzhong 125, 137, 142, 143, 154, 156 Zhang Xinmin 10 Zhang Yushu 2, 3, 7 Zhangde 100, 102, 103, 149, 230, 370, 482, 497 Zhangguansi 87, 89, 91, 93 Zhangjiakou 224, 367, 427, 465, 468, 469 Zhangming 208, 209 Zhangping 349 Zhangpu 62 Zhangqiu 338, 360, 436, 441, 450, 459 Zhangwu 481 Zhangzhou 62, 63, 119, 142, 155, 271, 272, 288, 290, 309, 317, 332, 349, 408, 410, 411 Zhanhua 449, 453, 461 Zhaocheng 453 Zhaoqing 65, 95, 312, 344, 350, 409, 410, 411 Zhaotong 420, 422, 423, 427 Zhaowen 387, 388 Zhaoxian 475 Zhaoyuan 445, 449, 461 Zhaozhou 228, 365, 366, 475 Zhen’an 414, 415 Zhending 19, 29, 32, 43, 111, 116, 135, 148 Zhengding 228, 365, 367, 466 Zhenfeng 86 Zheng county 486, 493 Zhenjiang 17, 117, 126, 151, 253, 255, 257, 288, 289, 305, 306, 307, 309, 348, 384, 385, 386, 391 Zhenping 490 Zhenxiong 70, 123 Zhenyang 254 Zhenyuan 83, 419, 423 Zhenze 340, 341, 346, 347, 387, 389

622 Zhongdu 17, 115, 300 Zhongmu 493 Zhongxiang 453 Zhongzhou 200, 201, 367, 413, 482, 484, 486, 488, 490, 491, 497, 498, 499 Zhou Chen 316 Zhoushan 141, 331 Zhu yuanzhang 15, 17, 29, 74, 90, 300, 316 Zhucheng 107, 338, 446, 456, 456, 457, 460 Zhuji 163, 261, 321, 330, 484 Zhuozhou 469 Zhuxi 279, 369, 404

Index Zhuzhou 287 Zichuan 240, 444, 452, 458 Zigong 311, 213 Zijin 328, 448 Zitong 202 Ziyang (嵫阳) 444 Ziyang (滋阳) 358, 452, 458 Zizhou 195, 196, 197, 413 Zouping 453, 454, 458 Zouxian 444, 452, 459 Zunhua 146, 222, 223, 365, 366, 471 Zunyi 86, 87, 88, 416, 419

45 mm

GLO BA L ECO N O M I C H I STO RY S E R I E S, 20 THE QUANTITATIVE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF CHINA, 7 SE R I E S E DI TO R S: Bas van LEEUWEN, Biblical Encyclopedia, 8 Yi XU, Robin PHILIPS and Meimei WANG 9 789004 682658

ISSN:brill.nl/be 2405-870X brill.com/qehc issn: 1874-3927

QEHC 7

The Population History of China (1368–1953)

CAO Shuji, Ph.D. is an honorary Professor at the Hong Kong Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences. His research areas include the history of China’s population and China’s economic environment.  He has published many journal articles and books, including A History of Chinese Immigrates (Ming Period) and A History of Chinese Immigrates (Qing Period) (Fudan University Press, 2022).

G E H S 20

CAO Shuji

From 1368 to 1953, China's administrative divisions were mainly composed of counties, prefectures, and provinces. This book shows the population figures, density, and changes in the provincial population in China during this period and population figures of each major city and town and its proportion in terms of the provincial population during this period―the urbanization rate. Data in this book is drawn partly from historical sources and partly from statistical-model-based calculations. The book also includes provincial population maps in 1393, and their original statistical models, population databases, and metadata.

GLOBAL ECONOMIC HISTORY SERIES / THE QUANTITATIVE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF CHINA

The Population History of China (1368–1953) CAO Shuji