From Barbarians To The Middle Kingdom TH PDF

From Barbarians to the Middle Kingdom:
The Rise of the Title “Emperor, Heavenly

Qaghan” and Its Significance
Han-je Park*
INTRODUCTION
The entrance of the Five Barbarians (wuhu 五胡) people into the Central Plain
of China is a historical event of great significance in the East, comparable in
importance to the migration of Germanic tribes into the Roman Empire. The
Five Barbarians became the main actors in the establishment of an array of
dynasties throughout the periods of the Sixteen Kingdoms of Five Hu, the
Northern Dynasties, and eventually the cosmopolitan empires of the Sui (隋)
and the Tang (唐). With the passing of time, they lost their original culture and
customs, and many came to lose their ethnonym. This phenomenon is described
as their sinicization (hanhua 漢化), although there is also a contrary view that
the Han (漢) people in China were barbaricized (huhua 胡化) and thus widened
the range of Chinese culture. But, we may ask, do the terms “sinicization”
and “barbaricization” adequately convey what really happened? Aside from
arguments regarding sinicization or barbaricization, what role did the Five
Barbarians actually play in the history of China? Were they indeed a people
without a culture, who could therefore not bring anything novel to China itself,1
or were they a civilization with a sophisticated culture of their own?
*Seoul National University (Seoul, Korea)
Journal of Central Eurasian Studies, Volume 3 (October 2012): 23–68

© 2012 Center for Central Eurasian Studies
24 Han-je Park
The Han and Tang empires are often joined together and referred to as
the “empires of the Han and the Tang,” implying that these two dynasties
have a great deal in common. But do they? The emergence of the Great
Tang Empire (大唐帝國) marks a turning point in Chinese history, and
cannot lightly be taken as a continuation of the past as is implied in the
use of the term “empires of the Han and the Tang.” In this paper, I explore
the differences between these two dynasties by juxtaposing the terms they
employed for their supreme rulers—“Emperor” (huangdi 皇帝), and “Emperor,
Heavenly Qaghan” (huangdi tian kehan 皇帝天可汗). The Tang emperors
were not called “Emperor, Heavenly Qaghan” for long, as the Tang dynasty’s
days as the Great Tang Empire were short: yet the imprints this left in Chinese
history were enduring.
The connection between the migration of nomadic people into the
Central Plain of China and the rise of the Great Tang Empire is quite
obvious. The building of the Great Tang Empire has been considered the
crowning achievement of the people of the Middle Kingdom (zhonghua
minzu 中華民族), but there are certain things regarding the process whereby
this accomplishment became possible which require further explanation. In
particular, there is the question of why the Tang imperial house—who were
either the direct descendants of nomadic people, or were at least people whose
ancestral background was as good as nomadic—transformed themselves into
Han.
The Han dynasty exhausted all its strength in annihilating the Xiongnu
(匈奴). The underlying reason why Emperor Wu of the Han (武帝 r. BCE
141–87) implemented such massive economic policies as the imposition
of a monopoly on salt and iron, “equal supply” (junshu 均輸法), and “price
stabilization” (pingzhun 平準法), was the need to fund the conquest of the
Xiongnu, who had an army of 300,000 archers.2 Despite the difference in the
populations of the two states (the entire Xiongnu population numbering less
than the population of one Han commandary (jun 郡)),3 Han efforts against
Xiongnu had generally been unsuccessful. But the Tang was the only Chinese
dynasty to have wiped out a nomadic empire in the north—the great empire
of the Turks (Tujue 突厥), which had the unprecedented military strength of
a million archers and looked down upon the Middle Kingdom.4
A direct comparison between the strengths of Han and Xiongnu, and
Tang and Turks, is hardly possible, but if we consider the strength of Xiongnu
and Turks to be similar, the crucial difference must lie between Han and
Tang. Population size was the most significant marker of a state’s strength in
the premodern era, and the first surviving population record in China is from
From Barbarians to the Middle Kingdom 25
2 AD, with a figure of 12 million households,5 while the Tang population

just after the establishment of the dynasty was just 3 million households,6
3.8 million in the early reign of Emperor Gaozong (高宗 r. 649–83).7 It seems
strange that a mere 3 million Tang were able to crush the mighty nomadic
empire and reign as a world empire, while the much more numerous Han
could not. The fact that the title “Emperor, Heavenly Qaghan” was used in the
early Tang period may help to explain this accomplishment, and in this article
I trace the process which led to the establishment of this title and examine its
significance.
I. “EMPEROR” AND “EMPEROR, HEAVENLY QAGHAN”
1. Th
e emperor’s “land ruled by scholar-officials” and the chanyu’s “land ruled
by archers”
After unification under the First Emperor of Qin, the emergence of the title
“Emperor” (Huangdi 皇帝) reflected a great change in Chinese perceptions of
the world. As is indicated by the saying “There is none who is not a subject
wherever humanity can be traced,”8 the horizons of the Chinese world
had been extended to the maximum. This ideology was realized by the
establishment of a system whereby “all under heaven” was incorporated into
the Qin commandaries and counties, all individuals came under unitarian
rule, and lands inhabited by other ethnic groups were organized into the
commandary-county (junxian 郡縣) system. The Qin set up commandaries
and counties in neighboring Xiongnu and Baiyue (百越) lands, sinifying other
ethnic groups and territories, and disallowing non-Chinese existence within
its territory.9
But the situation changed during the Han dynasty, both circumstantially
and ideologically. First, there was the appearance of the idea of strictly
distinguishing between the interior (zhong 中) and the exterior (wai 外), a
principle known as Differentiation of Hua and Yi (huayi fenbie 華夷分別論).
The argument was that the hua, the flowery or the elegant and cultured (i.e.,
China) and the yi, alien people or barbarians, possessed different qualities
in terms of character, culture, and the lands in which they lived, and thus
should be perceived as different in politics. This stemmed from recognition of
the diplomatic reality of the time, which was characterized by the pluralistic
egalitarian coexistence of the Han with the Xiongnu, Nanyue (南越), and
Chosǒn (朝鮮).
26 Han-je Park
Second was the ideological change. Liu Bang (劉邦), or Emperor Gaozu
(高祖) of the Han, had no choice but to set up a commandary-feudatory
system (junguozhi 郡國制), which was an amalgamation of the commandary/
county and the feudal systems, due to the necessity of sharing the fruits of
success with meritorious retainers at the founding of the dynasty.10 Also, for
the Confucians, who opposed this overbearing and homogeneous rule11 and
promoted a dualistic worldview which distinguished interior from exterior,12
the commandary-county system of the First Emperor of Qin was considered
as originating from the motivation of privatizing all under heaven,13 so they
could not acknowledge it as worthy of an imperial institution.
Nevertheless, Jia Yi (賈誼)14 during the reign of Emperor Wen (文帝
r. BCE 180–157), or Sima Xiangru (司馬相如)15 and Dongfang Shuo (東方朔)16
during the reign of Emperor Wu, did maintain that virtue, grace, and
culturing rule should be extended to the exterior barbarians (yi). Yet this
worldview was abandoned after such events as the death of Emperor Wu,
the surrender of Li Guangli (李廣利) to the Xiongnu, and the salt and iron
debate.17 Especially as the debate over the protocol for Huhanya (呼韓邪),
the surrendering Xiongnu chanyu, was concluded to follow Xiao Wangzhi’s
(蕭望之) opinion, treating Huhanya as a guest (客) (i.e., non-subject (不臣),
or more precisely neighboring enemy (隣敵)), the relations between China
and barbarians from then on were systematized as a host–guest (主客)
relationship.18 This eventually meant that the ideology of Emperorship set up
by the First Emperor of Qin was forsaken.
Regarding this, a passage in the “Biography of Xiongnu” in the Records
of the Grand Historian (Shiji 史記) is worthy of our attention.
The late emperor has said thus: north of the Great Wall is a land ruled by archers
under the chanyu’s orders, south of the Great Wall is a land ruled by scholar-
officials under my orders.19
In other words, the Great Wall being the line of division, there is a clear
distinction between the northern land ruled by archers under the chanyu’s
dominion, and the southern land ruled by scholar-officials under the Han
emperor. Distinctions of culture and custom were not only manifest between
the chanyu and the emperor, but also among the people under their rule. In
addition, the Han observed that the Xiongnu lands were hard and salty and
that the five grains could not be cultivated there;20 meanwhile, the Xiongnu
commented that even if they should seize control of the Han lands, the
chanyu could not reside there permanently.21 Under such circumstances, the
Han Empire’s worldview, especially towards the nomadic peoples, became

symbolized by a stone statue named Horse Treading upon Xiongnu (馬踏匈奴
像), erected in front of the tomb of Huo Qubing (霍去病), an annex of
Emperor Wu’s tomb. This statue reflected both the reality and the aims of the
era.
Neither could the tributary model of the Qin be maintained.
International relations are expressed symbolically in the format of the
correspondence between rulers. First, then, let us look at the correspondence
between Han and Xiongnu. Emperor Wen’s letter to Laoshang (老上), the
third Xiongnu chanyu, opens with a greeting, “the emperor respectfully
inquires if the Xiongnu grand chanyu is well,”22 while the letter from
Laoshang chanyu to Emperor Wen begins, “the Xiongnu grand chanyu who
is born from heaven and earth, set up by the sun and the moon, respectfully
inquires if the Han emperor is well.”23 The correspondence thus reveals that
Han and Xiongnu were neighboring equals (隣對國). It is worthwhile noting
that the Xiongnu chanyu claimed he was born from heaven and earth, being
thus the Son of Heaven, just as the Han emperor did, implying that to the
chanyu the Han emperor was merely the emperor, not the Son of Heaven. It
is well known that the Han ruler called himself the Son of Heaven to exterior
subjects (外臣) and referred to his letters to them as “edicts.” So the Han
emperor and the Xiongnu chanyu did not recognize each other as the Son of
Heaven, but only as neighboring rulers of equal authority.24
In the correspondence between Emperor Wen and Zhao Tuo (趙佗),
king of Nanyue (南越王), Emperor Wen uses the greeting, “the Emperor
respectfully inquires after the King of Nanyue.”25 He also refers to his missive
as a “letter” (書) rather than an “edict,” and refrains from addressing Zhao
Tuo by his name, instead using “King,” thus affording him the status of an
equal, as in the case of the Xiongnu. But when Zhao Tuo reverted to being
an exterior subject, he wrote, “Tuo, your subject, dares death in bowing twice
and writing to your majesty the Emperor . . . I have submitted my tributes
according to time.”26 He then expressed his subordination.
This suggests, then, that there was a perception that the Han emperor’s
domain had deviated from the worldview characteristic of when the First
Emperor of Qin claimed the title “emperor” (huangdi), and it is obvious that
the neighboring nomadic empire of the Xiongnu was considered to be a
different world.
28 Han-je Park
2. “ The Emperor, Heavenly Qaghan” and the statues of subjects at imperial

tombs
1) The title “Qaghan” and its nomadic features

There are marked differences between the early Tang period and the classic
Han period after the reign of Emperor Wu. Let us start with Du You’s (杜佑)
opinion as recorded in The Encyclopedic History of Institutions (Tongdian
通典).
During the Zhenguan [貞觀 626–49] period of the Great Tang, the Ministry of
Revenue reported that more than 200,000 men and women who were originally
Chinese and returned from outside the border, or barbarians of the four directions,
following the Turks, surrendered and became registered in prefectures and
counties. At the time the chieftains of various barbarians came to the palace and
bowed down their heads, requesting Taizong to become the Heavenly Qaghan.
Taizong answered, “I am the Son of Heaven of the Great Tang. How can I also
carry out the affairs of qaghan?” The numerous officials and barbarians of the four
directions shouted ten thousand years for the emperor, and from then on when
the imperial sealed letter was bestowed upon the chieftains of the west and north,
in all he addressed himself “the Emperor, Heavenly Qaghan” [皇帝天可汗]. When a
chieftain of the various fan died, an edict was always issued to establish a successor.
The rulership [臨統] over the barbarians of the four directions began from here.27
Of course this record is written from the point of view of the Tang, and
thus its literal truth might be called into question; but it contains two points
on which I wish to focus. First, we see that in 630 (Zhenguan 4),28 Taizong
began calling himself both “Son of Heaven of the Great Tang” and “Heavenly
Qaghan”; second, we note that the “Emperor, Heavenly Qaghan” exercised
real rulership in nominating the chieftains’ successors. Borrowing Du You’s
expression, we may say that this was the first time in Chinese history that
such a degree of rulership had been exercised over barbarians. By combining
the titles of the supreme rulers of both the nomadic and sedentary worlds,
Taizong was claiming that his sovereignty extended over both—a stark
contrast with the case of the Han.
For how long was the title of Heavenly Qaghan in use, and what specific
implications are bound up in the term “rulership” (臨統)? After the first use of
the title in 630 (Zhenguan 4), in 646 (Zhenguan 12), following the pacification
of the north and the fall of Xueyantuo (薛延陀), eleven peoples, including the
Tiele (鐵勒), Uighur (回紇), and Bayegu (拔野古), came to address Taizong
using the title “Qaghan.”29 Later still, in 765 (Yongtai 永泰 1) of Daizong

(代宗), when Pugu Huaien (僕固懷恩) joined with Uighur and Tibet (吐蕃)
and attacked the Tang, the Uighurs were calling the Tang emperor “Heavenly
Qaghan.”30 How long did this relationship continue between the Tang and the
nomadic states? “The Biography of Northern Barbarians” (北狄傳) in the New
History of the Tang (Xin Tang shu 新唐書) seems to support the understanding
that it was only up until Kaiyuan period (開元 713–41) that the Tang emperor
exercised “rulership” as Heavenly Qaghan,31 since “From Tianbao period
[天寶 742–56] on, China was weakened, and the imperial army could not
cross over the Yellow River to the north, and halted at Qin [秦] and Bin [邠]
to the west.”32
There is also the question of what was implied by the expression
“rulership” (臨統).33 “The Biography of Northern Barbarians” in the New
History of the Tang explains that to the ends of heaven’s covering, all were
subjects of the dynasty; that to the ins and outs of the sea, nowhere was
not part of the empire’s districts and counties; and that the chieftains of the
wastelands depended on the Tang seal to legitimize their rule and none
considered the Tang a guest country. Commenting on Tang rule over the
frontier peoples, the biography adds: “never has it surpassed this degree from
the times of the Three Kings” (三王以來, 未有以過之). These records point out
that the Tang’s relations with the nomadic states were completely different
from the Han’s.
What kind of “rulership” (臨統) did the heavenly qaghan exert in
reality?34 According to Du You, it was the prerogative of the heavenly qaghan
to designate the successor in the event of the death of a chieftain among the
barbarians, a power he exercised through issuing an edict. This was the most
potent expression of Tang rule over the nomadic chieftains, both symbolically
and as a matter of political fact. For the nomadic states, the struggle over
succession was a critical issue with profound implications, bearing even
on the continued existence of the state itself; the ability to intervene in the
succession process thus shows that Tang influence here ran far deeper than
mere rhetoric. Without a clear and decisive resolution of the succession
process, diplomatic relations such as tributes or military cooperation could be
undermined.35
As well as this, the heavenly qaghan was the overlord of the barbarian
chieftains, and the leader of the military confederation which together
they comprised. This coalition had been formed to prevent the restoration
of the Turks’ military potential in the period from 630 (Zhenguan 4) to
657 (Xianqing 顯慶 2) of Gaozong, when the Western Turks were finally
30 Han-je Park
conquered. Subsequently, after 661 (Longshuo 龍朔 1), the Tang established

military garrisons in the sixteen states of the Western Regions (xiyu 西域)
and the Nine Surnames of Zhaowu (昭武九姓) in order to coordinate their
military responses to invasions by the Arabs (大食) and Tibetans (吐蕃). The
battle of Talas, led by Gao Xianzhi/Ko Sǒnji (高仙芝) in 752 (Tianbao 11),
was also part of that cooperation.36 Those states which acknowledged the
suzerainty of the Tang emperor are described as wanting to serve the heavenly
qaghan and to provide troops and resources to assist him in conquest, just as
the Tang people do:37 this indicates that participation in military campaigns
was the paramount obligation of states which were subject to Tang “rulership.”
Apart from Taizong and Xuanzong (玄宗 r. 712–56), no other Tang
emperors seem to have used the title “Heavenly Qaghan.” One might question
whether the political, diplomatic, and military superiority Tang emperors
derived from the title was maintained throughout the first half of the Tang
period.38 However, it should be noted that other emperors often acted as if
they had the title, although their use of the title is not confirmed in textual
sources. The case of Gaozong is one such example. He was accompanied by
thirty chieftains, including Geluolu Sheli (葛邏祿社利), the governor-general
of Langshan (狼山都督), when he performed the Feng and Shan sacrifices
(封禪) in Mount Tai (泰山) following the suppression of the rebellion of
Ashina Helu (阿史那賀魯).39 Equally, one might consider Zhongzong’s (中宗
r. 684, 705–10) visit to the imperial ancestral shrine, accompanied by Li
Duozuo (李多祚): when the censor Wang Di (王覿) challenged Li’s ethnic
origin,40 the emperor answered that he had made Li a confidant. This recalls
Taizong’s decision to include new nomadic chieftains in the ceremony of
visiting the imperial tomb in 639 (Zhenguan 13).41 The presence of nomadic
chieftains at important state rituals served as a diplomatic symbol of the
subordination of barbarians of the four directions,42 and also represents the
Tang emperor as transcending the exclusive and racist hua–yi ideology and
unifying hua and yi in one (huayi datong 華夷大同).
Although Gaozong did not receive the title “Heavenly Qaghan” from
the nomadic chieftains, he entitled himself “Heavenly Emperor” (tianhuang
天皇) in 674 (Xianheng 咸亨 4).43 It has been argued that the title “Heavenly
Emperor” indicates the influence of Daoism,44 but to me it seems more
probable that Gaozong’s title was intended to indicate that his achievements
were equal to those of a heavenly qaghan: pacifying various barbarians,
suppressing the Turks by putting down the rebellion of Ashina Helu, and
stabilizing the Western Regions through subjugating Sule (疎勒) in alliance
with Tibet and Yinmian (咽麪).
Let us delve further into the origin of the title “Qaghan” and the history
of its adoption. It is well known that this title emerged with the eclipse
of prestige of the title chanyu. Following the downgrading of chanyu to
a level lower than kingship, the first use of the new title is understood to
have been by the Rouran (柔然) chief Shelun (社崙), who expanded his
territory by annexing adjacent tribes while calling himself Qiudoufa Qaghan
(丘豆伐可汗).45 The History of the Wei (Weishu 魏書) records only the title
“Emperor” (皇帝) in use throughout the existence of the dynasty, but Hu
Sansheng (胡三省), a commentator on the Comprehensive Mirror to Aid
in Government (Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑑), has pointed to an earlier use of
“Qaghan” by the tribal chiefs of the Tuoba (拓跋) tribe of Xianbei (鮮卑).46
Recent findings have also provided evidence that ancestors or chiefs of the
Tuoba tribe were called “Qaghan,” as well as the Northern Wei (北魏) emperor.
On his tomb inscription, erected in 507 (Zhengshi 正始 4), it is recorded that
Xizhi (奚智) called his ancestor Emperor Wei “Puhui Qaghan” (僕膾可汗).47
The written prayer discovered at Gaxian cave (嘎仙洞), an ancient residence
of Xianbei Tuoba, found in 1980, includes a sentence containing the words
“qaghan” and “qatun.”48 Further, The Song of Mulan (木蘭詩),49 a Tuoba
folksong, uses the titles “Son of Heaven” and “Qaghan”50 in a context which
implies that the Northern Wei emperor is both of these simultaneously, since
they refer to a single person.51 I suspect that the title “Qaghan” was used from
the Dai (代) period of Tuoba, and at least from Shamo han (沙漠汗)/Wendi
(文帝) onwards, until the end of the Northern Wei.
The reason for picking Shamo han as the beginning is that he held the
title “Han” (汗), and the basis for the claim that use of the title endured up
to the end of the dynasty is that Tuyuhun’s (吐谷渾) use of it was a contested
diplomatic issue until the end of the Northern Wei.52 A look at the history
of diplomacy between Tuyuhun and the Northern Wei may help clarify
things. “Qaghan” was used during the era of Tuyuhun (?–317) and Shuluogan
(樹洛干 405–17), but it was dropped when Fulianchou (伏連籌 r. 490–529)
subjugated himself to the Northern Wei during Zhengguang period (正光
520–25). Then, during the late Northern Wei, Kualü (夸呂 535–91), the son of
Fulianchou, adopted the title once again.53
In view of this history, the emergence of the title “Heavenly Qaghan” carries
special significance. Adding “heavenly” (天) to “qaghan” (可汗) yields the meaning
“Qaghan of Qaghans,”54 thus implying that the Tang emperor is higher in rank
than the nomadic qaghan.55 If Xiongnu had wanted to call the Han emperor
Chanyu or Heavenly Chanyu, would the Han have accepted it? Probably not.
Could this, then, be the difference between the Han and the Tang emperors?
32 Han-je Park
2) T
he statues of subjects at the tombs of Emperor Wu of the Han, and
Taizong and Gaozong of the Tang
The gap between the Han and Tang worldviews is exemplified by three
(sets of) stone statues: Horse Treading upon Xiongnu at Huo Qubing’s tomb,
annexed to Maoling, the tomb of Emperor Wu of the Han; Stone Statues of
Fourteen Chieftains in front of Zhaoling, the tomb of Taizong; and Statues of
Sixty-one Barbarian Subjects, standing before Qianling, the tomb of Gaozong.
It was rare for statues of barbarians to be erected before an imperial tomb
prior to the Tang dynasty, and only Emperor Wu’s tomb has one. Comparing
the statues of the two dynasties reveals considerable disparity between the
ways the Han and the Tang viewed alien peoples. For the Han, the nomadic
Xiongnu people were not candidates for equal coexistence; whereas for the
Tang it was different.
First, let us consider the statues at Zhaoling. The Stone Statues of Fourteen
Chieftains were carved on Gaozong’s orders after Taizong’s death during
Yonghui period (永徽 650–55), representing the rulers of fourteen states who
either subjugated themselves to the Tang Empire or had diplomatic relations
with it.56 A commentator describes the statues as follows: “they all have deep
eyes and a big nose, stalwart with bows and swords, truly a rare sight to
behold.”57 From this we can infer that most of them were from the nomadic
or oasis peoples of the northwest. Two facts support this assumption: first,
in the fourth month of 630 (Zhenguan 4), various peoples of the northwest
requested Taizong to accept the title “Heavenly Qaghan” as their common
chief. And second, in the first month of 647 (Zhenguan 21), various chieftains
north of the great desert requested the opening of a road called The Road to
Visit the Heavenly Qaghan (can tian kehan dao 參天可汗道), running from the
south of the Uighur to the north of the Turks, and the establishment of sixty-
eight relay stations along it.58
The design of the statues certainly betrays an intention to exaggerate
Tang majesty. Among the fourteen chieftains, four—Srongbtsan sGampo
(Songzan ganbu 松贊干布), Kim Jindeok (金真德, Queen Jindeok of Silla),
Fan Touli (范頭利), and Yinan (夷男 Zhenzhu piqie 真珠毗伽, qaghan of
Xueyantuo)—never visited Chang’an in their lives. Srongbtsan sGampo,
Ashina Sheer (阿史那社爾), Nuohebo (諾曷鉢), Helibushibi (訶黎布失畢),
Fuduxin ( 伏闍信 ), and Long Tuqizhi ( 龍突騎支 ) were ruling in their
homelands in the period when the statues were being carved, and the rest,
except for Kim Jindeok, Fan Touli, and Yinan, were living in Chang’an.59 Yet
the Tang emperor remained determined to assert that he was the de facto
leader of the neighboring dynasties’ rulers.
Next, the Statues of Sixty-one Vassal Subjects at Qianling. The disparity in

the names given to these statues—variously fan xiang (蕃像), zhufan junchang
xiang (諸蕃君長像), binwang xiang (賓王像), or fanchen chengshixuanjinzhe
xiang (蕃臣曾侍軒禁者像)—results from slight differences in understanding
of the statues’ significance. The statues are known to have been carved in 705
(Shenlong 神龍 1), standing at the south gate of Qianling, half to the east and
half to the west, in four rows from north to south and eight columns from
east to west. Most represent peoples from the northwest regions,60 which
indicates the ethnic composition of the Tang Empire during the reigns of
Gaozong and Wu Zetian (武則天 r. 690–705).
Originally there were sixty-four statues, each with their name and
official title carved on the back. In the Northern Song (北宋) era, the Shenxi
transportation commissioner Yu Shixiong (游師雄) noticed the erosion of the
inscriptions and visited an old family in Fengtian (奉天) county to recover the
surviving rubbings, which he had inscribed on four stele,61 named Illustration
of Qianling (Qianling tu 乾陵圖). That the number of statues at Qianling
surpasses Zhaoling is remarkable, considering the situation at the time.
Thus, already in the Song period, this disparity was blamed on Wu Zetian’s
ignorance of the fact that the majesty of Gaozong’s reign was merely derived
from the remaining glory of Taizong’s,62 and certainly there must have been
some degree of exaggeration.63
Regarding the identity of the sixty-one statues, the Illustration of the
Record of Chang’an (Chang’an zhi tu 長安志圖) by Li Haowen (李好文) of
the Yuan contains names and official titles for thirty-nine of them, and A
Supplement to the Collection of Inscriptions (Jinshilubu 金石錄補) by Ye Yibao
(葉奕苞) of the early Qing for thirty-eight. At present, only six statues survive
with their official title on the back. Thirty-six of the statues can be identified
through the available sources, and among them there are two chieftains
each with Tibetan, Turkic, and Tuyuhun origins, the rest being from the
protectorates of Anbei (安北), Beiting (北庭), Anxi (安西), and chieftains of
minor peoples. The official ranks of these chieftains are very high, most of
them being grand officials above the third rank.
Although there is an element of hyperbole in the construction of these
statues, the general trend of the era cannot be denied. Still, alternative
explanations have been proposed for the identity of the people represented
therein: perhaps they are contributors in the construction of Qianling,64 or
ambassadors attending a memorial ritual for Gaozong.65 But since some
official titles carry the word “late,” signifying that they were deceased before
Gaozong or Wu Zetian passed away, these explanations cannot be valid.
34 Han-je Park
The most reasonable interpretation is that they are the chieftains of various
peoples who submitted to the Tang, and who thereby became high officials
during Gaozong’s or Wu Zetian’s reign. Among the confirmed identities,
one is a chieftain from the four yi who was nominated as a grand general of
Twelve Guards of the Tang court, and another a chieftain named as a local
official. The phrase shixuanjinzhe (侍軒禁者) from one of the inscriptions
reveals that most were employed by and served the Tang court. The persons
represented by the statues come from a wide area, extending beyond the great
desert to the north, beyond Pamir, and as far as Syr darya to the west. They
were either the highest officers among the palace guards, or grand-generals of
the protectorates of Anbei, Beiting, and Anxi.
II. FROM DISCRIMINATION TO GRAND HARMONY
1. From “Treatise on Relocating the Barbarians” to “All Are the Subjects of Us”
As the Stone Statues of Fourteen Chieftains and Statues of Sixty-one Barbarian

Subjects indicate, many alien people served in the Tang court. Of course this
phenomenon did not appear suddenly in the Tang dynasty. The Northern Wei
had actively adopted a policy of accepting and embracing all.66 This policy
began even before they occupied north China67 and is credited with being
the source of the strength they needed to conquer the Southern Dynasty and
unify China.68
As recorded by The Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang (Luoyang
qielan ji 洛陽伽藍記), which described Luoyang in that period, this policy
resulted in the immigration of 3,000 foreign clergymen from the western
lands of Great Qin (大秦 Eastern Roman Empire) and elsewhere, who were
housed in more than 1,000 jian (間), and a further 10,000 households who
emigrated to the Northern Wei from areas west of Pamir to Great Qin.69 In
particular, people from Geying guo (歌營國) in the south came to China for
the first time since the Han. The Luoyang qielanji contrasts these phenomena
with the situation of Han Chinese dynasties like the Han or the Cao Wei
(曹魏).70
The foreigners who came to China during the Northern Dynasties
consisted of clergymen and people with various skills. Among the
immigrants, many were called merchant hu (胡)71 or wealthy hu, and trading
was their most prominent occupation. The term “merchant hu of the Western
Regions” (西域商胡) refers broadly to Sogdian merchants, who were very
active in Tang trade and who rose to form a political interest group during
the Eastern Wei (東魏) and Northern Qi (北齊) periods.
The ruler’s personal favorites (yinxing 恩倖) were key political actors
during the Northern Qi, and many of them were deeply related to the
Western Regions. They can be classified into two groups: first, those who
were called the merchant hu of the Western Regions, hu musicians, and
various entertainers of Qucha, represented by He Shikai (和士開) and He
Hongzhen (何洪珍); second, eunuchs, slaves, singers and dancers, and ghost-
seers, among whom were the people who were called the “three dignitaries”72
of the Northern Qi.73 Infatuation with western music grew stronger from
Gao Cheng (高澄 i.e., Emperor Wenxiang 文襄) to Emperor Wucheng
(武成帝) and the Last Lord (Houzhu 後主), eventually contributing to the
fall of the dynasty.74 There were also western sharpshooters in the vanguards
of Northern Qi army,75 implying that a considerable number of westerners
served in the army overall. The alien immigration to the Central Plains
during the Northern Wei and Eastern Wei/Northern Qi era continued on
into the Tang.
After the collapse of the Turkic empire the Turks fled northward to
Xueyantuo and westward to the Western Regions (西域), but more than
100,000 surrendered to the Tang.76 Taizong ordered officials to debate how
the surrendered masses should be dealt with, and numerous opinions were
aired. The vice president of the Central Secretariat Yan Shigu (顏師古),
the vice president of the Board of Rites Li Baiyao (李百藥), the governor-
general of Xiazhou (夏州), and Wei Zheng (魏徵) objected to the idea that
the surrendered should be admitted into Tang territory. Wei Zheng drew
upon the Western Jin (西晉) period’s Guo Xin (郭歆) and Jiang Tong’s (江統)
Xironglun (徙戎論) to warn of a potential catastrophe similar to the Yongjia
(永嘉) Disorders.77
Now the number of surrendered is near 100,000, but after a few years they will
multiply two times and will certainly be an irreversible disease inside the belly.
In early Jin various hu mingled with people and resided in China and Guo Xin
and Jiang Tong pleaded with Emperor Wu [武帝] to drive all of them outside the
border and cut off the sprout of trouble, but Emperor Wu did not follow their
advice. After twenty some years the area between the rivers Yi and Luo [伊洛之間]
turned into the land of fur coats. This past is a bright mirror of the present!78
Wei thus compared their present situation with the Western Jin’s just before
the Yongjia Disorders. Guo Xin had argued a similar point before Emperor
36 Han-je Park
Wu in 280 (Taikang 太康 1),79 and Jiang Tong had again raised the issue
during Emperor Hui’s (惠帝) reign in 299 (Yongkang 永康 9).80 Deng Ai
(鄧艾) of Cao Wei81 and Fu Xuan (傅玄) of the Western Jin82 were of the same
opinion, namely that in order to solve the dilemma of barbarians coming to
comprise half the population of Guanzhong (關中), the barbarians should be
moved to their original lands. This solution may have commended itself in
theory, but in reality would have been impossible to implement, indicating a
certain naivety in their understanding of the problem.
The essence of Liu Xuan’s (劉宣) advice to Liu Yuan (劉淵), a grandson
of Xuan’s brother and the founder of the Han/Former Zhao (漢/前趙), the
first dynasty of the Sixteen Kingdoms of the Five Barbarians, was that “the
Jin imposed atrocity upon us, drove us like slaves, . . . we should revive the
achievement of Huhanya chanyu.”83 The underlying motive of the rise of the
Sixteen Kingdoms of the Five Barbarians was to escape the shackles of slavery
and recover the ancient achievement of Huhanya.84 Huhanya represented
an age when the nomadic Xiongnu and agricultural Han were on friendly
terms, and what the nomadic peoples sought was not slavery but to be equal
neighbors or equal subjects. It is indeed true that the Chinese dynasty and the
nomadic dynasty had remained hostile to each other until the Western Jin,
and Wei Zheng’s argument turned on this history of mutual understanding.
However, the Han-Jin period and the Tang period present a significant
contrast in terms of the atmosphere at the court. Many of the court officials
now proposed that the Tang settle the surrendered hu and transform them
into farmers.85 Taizong rejected Wei Zheng’s and the other officials’ opinions,
and instead chose Wen Yanbo’s (溫彥博) preserve-and-nurture policy.86
The Tang settled the surrendered Turks in a region stretching from the
eastern Youzhou (幽州) to western Lingzhou (靈州), where Tuli (突利) had
ruled before, set up four prefectures of Shunzhou (順州), Youzhou (祐州),
Huazhou (化州), and Changzhou (長州), and made Tuli the governor-general
of Shunzhou. Meanwhile, with respect to Illig’s (Xieli 頡利) old domain, the
Tang established six prefectures divided between the government-general
of Dingxiang (定襄) on the left and the government-general of Yunzhong
( 雲中) on the right. Ashina Sunishi (阿史那蘇尼失) and Ashina Simo
(阿史那思摩) were enfeoffed as Commanderial Prince of Huaide (懷德郡王)
and Commanderial Prince of Huaihua (懷化郡王). The records say that
the remainder of the chieftains who arrived at Chang’an were appointed
as commanders of the palace guards. When they lined up at the court,
more than a hundred were above the fifth rank, almost as many as half
of the existing court officials. Thus almost 10,000 households moved into
Chang’an.87 This, then, was the Tang approach following the fall of the Turkic
empire.
Wen Yanbo’s principle was “after a few years, all will be our people”
(shunian zhi hou xi wei wumin 數年之後悉為吾民), based upon Confucius’
ideal of “teaching with no classification” (youjiao wulei 有教無類). This
approach is similar to that of Fu Jian (符堅) of Former Qin (前秦),88 especially
as regards what he did after conquering the rival state of Murong (慕容).
Although Fu Jian’s dynasty fell partly due to his tolerance policy, this was not
the case for the Tang. We can thus see that the Han and the Tang had very
different approaches towards the four Yi.
2. F
rom “unification of the Six Directions” to “northern and southern
barbarians becoming one family”
The Six Directions, or liuhe (六合), is a way of understanding the world

as it appeared to the historical Chinese mind. This phrase made its first
appearance in the Zhuangzi, there meaning heaven (above), earth (below),
and the four cardinal directions.89 Other vocabulary was also employed to
indicate the dominions of the supreme Chinese ruler, such as “All Under
Heaven” (tianxia 天下), “Four Quarters” (sifang 四方), “Nine Provinces”
(jiuzhou 九州), and “Middle Kingdom” (Zhongguo 中國).90 Until the Spring
and Autumn period, the distinction between the hua and the yi was unclear,
thus both (the yi including Qin, Chu 楚, Wu 吳, and Yue 越) were included
under the concept of the Four Quarters. But from late Spring and Autumn,
or the Warring States era, the concept of hua and yi developed, leading to the
emergence of the idea of the Middle Kingdom as the hua, set in contrast to
the yi. The definition of the Four Quarters altered correlatively, now meaning
a relative space comprising the Middle Kingdom alone, and from which the
yi had been excluded.
The Six Directions, or other similar terms such as fangwai (方外), liuji
(六極), and yunei (宇內), now appeared, conceptualizing a region of space that
was wider than sifang and its likes. According to research by Kim Hankyu,91
this concept of space emerged first in the Zhuangzi. Fang means the secular
world or world of common sense, thus fangnei (方內) is in the category
of physical things, and corresponds to the notion of sifang in Confucian
writings. In contrast, fangwai is in the category of metaphysical things,
and corresponds to the notion of Zhuangzi, which is the totality of space
outside the Confucian sifang and where the absolute dao (道) is realized.
Thus the fangwai in Zhuangzi does not mean the duality of the world but the
38 Han-je Park
expansion of the world. The concept of fangwai and its likes were created in
Zhuangzi to describe the new world which Zhuangzi himself (i.e., the author)
had found, and they framed a three-dimensional concept of space where the
horizontal sifang and vertical heaven and earth were integrated into one.92
The First Emperor of Qin was the first to use the Six Directions, a
metaphysical space in which the absolute dao is realized, to mean the
dominion of China. After the unification by the First Emperor of Qin, the
institution of “emperor” emerged and its domain expanded conceptually
to “within the Six Directions.”93 And as we know from the words of Li Si
(李斯)—“in the land there were no four corners, and among the people there
were no other states”94—the Qin desired not only to expand by conquest but
also to unify the culture and customs of the conquered.95
Nevertheless, the term “Six Directions” was mere rhetoric. Heaven is
included in the term, but cannot be placed under dominion; and even if Li
Si’s sentiments had been carried out in earnest, the territory would not have
extended further than the newly annexed six states.96 The other conquests
of the First Emperor had limits—west to Juyan (居延) county of Zhangye
(張掖),97 north to Taiyuan (太原).98 The Qin’s construction of the Great Wall,
intended to block the northern nomads’ entry into the Central Plain, is itself
testimony of the limitations of their domain.
After the Qin, the term “Six Directions” was seldom used to indicate
the imperial domain, and the barbarians were increasingly understood
as separate from China, and not to be placed under its dominion. The
Confucians in particular limited the range of the Chinese ruler’s dominion to
within the Four Seas (四海), excluding all barbarians. From the Han period,
the Tradition of Gongyang (Gongyang chuan 公羊傳) and Tradition of Guliang
(Guliang chuan 穀梁傳) promoted a graded worldview which contrasted with
the immoderate aspirations to unitary rule, and reflected the reality that,
despite the imperial claims, they were unable to rule the barbarians.99
Thus the remark of Emperor Wen of the Han that “the Six Directions
share the same custom, all under heaven becoming one family” began to be
used as an idiom to mean the unification of China,100 and phrases such as
“purifying and harmonizing the Six Directions” (qinghe lihe 清和六合)101 and
“relieving and saving the Six Directions” (ningji liuhe 寧濟六合) were meant
similarly. From then on to the age of division—the Wei, Jin, Northern, and
Southern Dynasties—the term “Six Directions” came to mean unification
within China or peace within the borders, as in the phrases “unifying the
Six Directions” (hunyi liuhe 混一六合) or “unifying and purifying the Six
Directions” (hunqing liuhe 混清六合).102 Some argue that although in the
Three Kingdoms period the Six Directions excluded the barbarians, in Fu

Jian’s times they became once again included within it;103 however, this is a
misreading of the sources.104 For instance, Helian Bobo (赫連勃勃) used the
term when he made known his determination to unify China in coalition
with the nomadic people who had immigrated into it.105 In the Eastern Jin
(東晉) and following Southern Dynasties, and also in the Northern Dynasties,
the term just meant unification of China, and it was thus used in the Sui to
refer to the conquest of Chen (陳) and the resulting unification of China.106
A new term arose to include agrarian China, the land of nomadic tribes,
and the southern region of man (蠻) people: this was hu yue (胡越). While the
Six Directions was a spatial concept, hu yue is specifically racial. Hu yue was
an old term which gained a new meaning during the Wei, Jin, Northern and
Southern Dynasties, and Sui-Tang periods. Originally during Qin and Han
it meant outside the boundaries of China—north from the Great Wall and
south from Wuling (五嶺).107 The range of Wuling begins in the west from
the south of Hengshan (衡山) and ends in the east at the sea, so they are five
mountains consisting of the southern border of Hunan and Fujian provinces.
Present-day Guangdong is located south of it.108 Thus the term hu indicated
the nomadic peoples north of the Great Wall, while yue stood for beyond Wu
(吳) area, which later became part of the Chinese domain.
Li Yuan (李淵), Emperor Gaozu (高祖) of the Tang, famously remarked,
“There was no such instance since ancient times that the hu and the yue
became one family!” His comment, which brings us back to the usage of
the title “Heavenly Qaghan,” was made in 633 (Zhenguan 7) when, as the
abdicated emperor, he made the surrendered Turkic Illig (Xieli) Qaghan
dance and the southern man chieftain Feng Zhidai (馮智戴) recite a poem
at a banquet hosted by Taizong.109 It is interesting that the place to which
Taizong invited the abdicated Li Yuan was Weiyang Palace (未央宮). Taizong
seemed to be humbling himself in comparison to Han Gaozu, crediting
him with having made the barbarians of the four directions surrender and
become subjects of the Tang. But although the situation was apparently
designed to console the abdicated emperor, Taizong was in fact boasting of
his achievements through comparing himself with Han Gaozu regarding
the degree of dominion over the barbarians. In Han Gaozu’s time, all under
heaven was not yet stabilized, and it was in these circumstances that Gaozu
reprimanded Xiao He (蕭何) for having constructed Weiyang Palace too
extravagantly; Xiao replied that the Son of Heaven makes the Four Seas his
home and without grandeur no authority can be shown.110 Weiyang Palace
was where the banquet was held, implying that it was Taizong’s intention to
40 Han-je Park
underscore the difference between Han and Tang in their rule of the nomads.
Taizong makes similar insinuations elsewhere as well. In 639 (Zhenguan
13), upon receiving tribute from Sule, Taizong spoke to Fang Xuanling and
others, saying “before, the First Emperor of Qin and Gaozu of the Han were
the only two who unified all under heaven and overcame the barbarians of
the four directions. We lifted up a three-foot sword and pacified the four
seas, and the distant barbarians subjugated themselves voluntarily, not any
less than the two rulers.”111 By saying that his achievements were no less than
those of the First Emperor of Qin and Han Gaozu, he was expressing the
difference between the Han and the Tang: and with respect to subjugating
the barbarians of the four directions, Taizong’s feat did indeed surpass them.
He had actually conquered the hu and yue, and The Encyclopedic History of
Institutions expressed appreciation of this achievement thus: “The rulership
over the barbarians of the four directions began from here.”
As mentioned above, the terms hu and yue did not appear for the first
time during the Northern Dynasties or the Tang,112 but previously the terms
had been rather unspecific in their reference, while by the time of the Tang
they had a much clearer meaning. If Taizong was the one who truly realized
the ideal of “hu and yue becoming one family,” his forerunners were Fu Jian
of Former Qin, and Emperor Xiaowen (孝文帝) of the Northern Wei, who
carried out the policy of accepting and embracing all under the perception
that the people of hu and yue could become as close as brothers.113
3. P
lurality of the zhonghua and the southward/westward expansion of the
title “Qaghan”
I have argued in another article that a multi-layered zhonghua world became

established in East Asia due to the influx of nomadic peoples to the Central
Plain. The Northern and Southern Dynasties vied with each other, both
calling themselves zhonghua and contemptuously referring to the other as
“barbarians of isles” (daoyi 島夷) or “rope-headed barbarians” (suolu 索虜),
and refusing diplomatic relations. Finally they settled into a relationship
of equal neighbors, with the Northern Wei calling themselves huang Wei
(皇魏)114 and the Liu Song (劉宋) huang Song (皇宋).115 Following this, Koguryǒ
and Japan also claimed themselves to be zhonghua. While the sedentary
world was witnessing the emergence of “emperors” with limited domains,116
the nomadic world was undergoing change. The title of the supreme nomadic
ruler was “Qaghan,” but the application of this title was now expanding into
the Central Plain.
First, let us consider the phenomenon of rulers of the Central Plain using
the title “Qaghan.” I have explained above that the Northern Wei monarchs
entitled themselves “Qaghan” and throughout the dynasty did not give up
this title. Further, the Sui emperor and almost all the rebel leaders of late Sui
were called “Qaghan” either by themselves or by others. Qimin (啓民), qaghan
of the Turks, addressed Emperor Wen of the Sui as Moyan Qaghan the Sage
of the Great Sui (Da Sui shengren Moyan Qaghan 大隋聖人莫緣可汗),117
and the rebel leaders Xue Ju (薛舉), Dou Jiande (竇建德), Wang Shichong
(王世充), Liu Wuzhou (劉武周), Liang Shidu (梁師都), Li Gui (李軌), and Gao
Kaidao (高開道) assumed the title as well.118 This shows both that the title
was overused, and also that it was spreading onto the Central Plain. Among
the rebel leaders, there is no record of Li Yuan calling himself “Qaghan.”
At that time, the principal reason for taking the title was to demonstrate
a connection with the Turks. Most of these rebels faced north and called
themselves subjects of the Turks, and the latter thus approved their use of the
title “Qaghan”—albeit that the rebel leaders in fact adopted the title on their
own initiative. Li Yuan, who also subjugated himself to the Turks, would have
been little different, raising the possibility that he too called himself “Qaghan,”
notwithstanding the absence of records.
Let us now turn to the nomadic empires of the northwestern steppe,
which sat outside the boundary of the zhonghua world. A key example is
the empire of the Rouran, who called themselves huang Rui (皇芮), raised
the banner of reviving the zhonghua, and were expanding their conceptual
boundaries into the Central Plain. In a letter to Xiao Daocheng (蕭道成)119
they expressed their desire to march out and conquer the areas Bing (幷), Dai
(代), Qin (秦), and Zhao (趙) of the Northern Wei and achieve the revival
of zhonghua, and forever be as neighbors with the Southern Qi (南齊).120
The letter said that the Rouran and Southern Qi were of a pair like heaven
and earth or yin and yang;121 and although located in the different lands of
southern China and the steppes they were like lips and teeth, and wanted to
enjoy good relations just as the Qi and Lu (魯) did in the Spring and Autumn
period. Unlike the Xiongnu, who segregated themselves from the Han,122
the Rouran were determined to participate in the zhonghua world. This
phenomenon signifies the northwestern nomadic world, which had hitherto
existed separate and apart, emerging as a member of the zhonghua world,123
driven by the inner fission of China.
Control over the nomadic lands shifted from Xiongnu to Xianbei and
then to Rouran,124 and in the Northern Wei, which had already become a
Central Plain state, relations between Rouran and Wei were understood in a
42 Han-je Park
manner similar to the previous Xiongnu–Han relations.125 However, although

similar in exterior appearance, these relations were completely different in
content. Xiongnu–Han relations were usually hostile,126 with both sides seeing
themselves as equal powers. Xiongnu, as the country of archers, stood in the
north against the south.127 For Xiongnu, the Central Plain was for plundering,
not occupying. The Rouran, in contrast, saw the Central Plain as their
potential dominions. The term “Qaghan” also spread southwestward when
Tuyuhun, a branch of the Xianbei, claimed the title.
Later, when the northwestern nomadic chiefs presented the title
“Heavenly Qaghan” to Taizong, it meant that they acknowledged the ruler
of the Central Plain in their south as master of both China and the steppes.
This change was partly due to the character of the Tang imperial house,
which originated from the hu/nomadic people and consequently had special
interest in the nomadic lands, but it was also connected to the influence of the
Rouran view of the Central Plain and zhonghua, which was distinct from the
Xiongnu conception of a purely nomadic dynasty. The nomadic peoples thus
began interfering with matters inside the Great Wall.
Among the 369 chancellors of the Tang, from ninety-eight families, most
have a sinicized nomadic origin, and this tendency did not change until the
end of the Tang era. In the case of Gaozu, among the sixteen chancellors at
least nine had marital relations with nomadic people. Cui Shenyou (崔慎猷),
who was chancellor from the Dazhong period (847–59) during Xuanzong’s
(宣宗) reign to Yizong’s (懿宗) reign (860–74), said that all the chancellors
appointed from the Dazhong reign to Xiantong (咸通) reign (847–74) were
nomadic people,128 which shows just how many individuals with nomadic
origins were significant actors in the Tang era.
With the Tang Empire encompassing both the nomadic and agricultural
realms, people from seventy-two nations129 flocked to Chang’an, the capital
of the world, and elsewhere within the empire, to compete with others on
skill and knowledge. In a somewhat exaggerated fashion, this phenomenon
is called “ten thousand countries coming to the court,”130 or “hua and yi in
grand harmony.”131
At the beginning of this article, I raised the question of how the Tang
managed to find the strength to establish the Great Tang Empire with such
a small population at the beginning of the dynasty; the answer I think lies in
the Tang policy of transforming aliens into an asset of the empire.
III. T
HE TRANSFORMATION FROM BARBARIAN TO
ZHONGHUA
1. Breaking away from “different species of barbarians”
When the Emperor Xiaowen of Northern Wei used the phrase hu yue, the
Xianbei Tuoba people were already neither hu nor yue. His relocation of the
capital to Luoyang was a necessary step to become zhonghua, showing that
he was different from the Five Barbarians. But this notion was not shared by
everyone. One did not cease to be one of the Five Barbarians by affirmation
alone. After the establishment of the Sixteen Kingdoms of the Five Barbarians
it took a long time for the northern nomadic dynasties to break away from
their barbarian identity. I have explained this matter in detail in another
place,132 but summarize it here by means of an introduction to the topic.
When Fu Jian announced that he wanted to study, his grandfather Fu
Hong retorted: “You are a barbarian, a different kind, so people will think you
like to drink, and now you seek to study!”133 This episode shows that studying
was the only way for Fu Jian to become free from the label of barbarian. But it
also implies that there were certain limitations which could not be overcome
by cultivation in traditional Chinese culture.134 The common perception
of both hu and han at the time was that there was not one barbarian who
had become a legitimate ruler, although some had gained merit as famous
ministers.135 Even hu rulers could not escape this perception, as can be seen
in the cases of Shi Le136 and Yao Yizhong;137 like Fu Jian, all they could do
was pour their efforts into studying. Being learned was the only way to
accumulate the virtue which a ruler should possess; furthermore, acquiring
Chinese traditional culture was virtually the only path by which one could
escape being hu. Hu rulers sought consolation in the essays of Mencius
and others regarding the birthplaces of legendary sages of ancient China.138
Mencius’ assertion that the sages Shun (舜), Yu (禹), and King Wen (文王)
were born in the lands of barbarians was the only support upon which hu
rulers could lean.139
Zhao Yi (趙翼) pointed out that the barbarian “usurpers” excelled in
learning,140 which reflects hu rulers’ efforts to leap the wall between hua and
barbarians. The common characteristic of Xiongnu rulers of Han/Former
Zhao such as Liu Yuan (劉淵),141 Liu He (劉和),142 Liu Xuan (劉宣),143 and
Liu Cong (劉聰)144 was that all liked to study and enjoyed reading classics
and history. Liu Yuan and Liu Xuan had the Han literati Cui You (崔游)
44 Han-je Park
and Sun Yan (孫炎), respectively, as teachers. Liu Cong was well versed in
calligraphy and poetry, having composed 100 poems of expressing feelings
(shuhuaishi 述懷詩). Much the same was true for the three generations of
Xianbei Murong: the founders of Qian Yan (前燕) Murong Huang (慕容皝)145
and Murong Zun (慕容儁),146 the founder of Southern Yan (南燕) Murong
De (慕容德),147 and Murong Bao (慕容寶), the crown prince of the founder
of Later Yan (後燕) Murong Chui (慕容垂).148 All were widely read and
possessed a high level of Chinese culture. The objective of pursuing study was
perhaps less to do with the fulfillment of curiosity than it was about gaining
recognition as a possessor of virtue and culture. As the result of his efforts,
Shi Le was praised highly by his advisor Zhang Bin (張賓), who said that Shi
was the only general among the many he had known who was prepared to
take on the task of being a ruler.149 Fu Jian also gained the complete trust of
his advisor Wang Meng (王猛).150
2. “I am not one of the Five Barbarians”: Implications
The hu people during the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties
period are collectively called Five Barbarians (wuhu 五胡) and their dynasties
the Sixteen Kingdoms (shiliu guo 十六國), thus combining to make the term
Sixteen Kingdoms of Five Barbarians (wuhu shiliu guo 五胡十六國), the
dynasties built by hu people. But, strictly speaking, not all of the Sixteen
Kingdoms were established by the Five Barbarians. Cheng (成) was built by
Cong (賨) people and Northern Yan (北燕) and Western Liang (西涼) by Han
people. The Western Yan (西燕) by Xianbei is not included in the Sixteen
Kingdoms.
The earliest example of the term “Five Barbarians” (wuhu) is found in Fu
Jian’s remark.151 It appears in a context where Fu says that he is already the Son
of Heaven and that there is variation in rank within the Five Barbarians, but
that Yao Chang (姚萇) of the Qiang (羌), whose people are not even included
within the ranks of the Five Barbarians, dares to demand the imperial seal.
The term “Sixteen Kingdoms” comes from The Spring and Autumn Annals of
the Sixteen Kingdoms (Shiliuo guo chunqiu 十六國春秋) of Cui Hong (崔鴻).
The criteria according to which he chose dynasties for inclusion were quite
clear—to be included, a state had to have established a dynasty, made a
name for itself, and have significant capacity for waging war—and did not
necessarily require that they be of the Five Barbarians.152 Still, the Sixteen
Kingdoms of Five Barbarians are perceived as being closely related to the hu
people of the age.
The hu rulers of the dynasties tried hard to shake off the label hu, but
faced difficulty in doing so. Fu Jian was told his efforts would be in vain both
by his grandfather and his brother.153 The fact that few rulers successfully
escaped their hu identity shows indeed that the path was hard.
During the Northern Wei another attempt was made to differentiate
the dynastic rulers from the Five Barbarians (wuhu). This was carried
out primarily by the third emperor, Emperor Taiwu (太武帝), who had
accomplished the great feat of unifying north China. Although he did
not deny his Xianbei identity, which is one of the Five Barbarians,154 he
announced a separation from the ways of the Xiongnu (also one of the Five
Barbarians), who represented all the atrocities inflicted upon China from the
Three Dynasties (三代) to the Qin and Han. This was along the same lines as
Fu Jian’s comment to Yao Chang regarding the Qiang people, perhaps because
the Xianbei Tuoba people had not participated in the Yongjia Disorders in
which the Han people had been deeply traumatized. In a sense, it was logical
for Emperor Taiwu to degrade Jin emperors as having lost the way of ruler,
so as to separate himself155 from previous hu rulers who had massacred Han
people.156 It was in this context that he suppressed Buddhism and nominated
Daoism as the national religion, since it meant taking a position opposite
to Shi Hu (石虎) of Later Zhao (後趙), who was a hu and felt affinity with
Buddhism157—both the hu people and Buddhism being alien to China.
Emperor Xiaowen took the policy even further, proclaiming Northern
Wei to be the successor of Western Jin, something which the regimes of Five
Barbarians had considered illegitimate. Previously, Northern Wei had chosen
earth as their dynasty’s virtue from among the five elements,158 but had not
clarified which dynasty they had succeeded. Emperor Xiaowen now adopted
water, making it clear that Wei was claiming succession from Western Jin,
whose virtue was metal.159
Another issue pertains to the forgery of lineage. This was tried by many
dynasties of the Wuhu. Emperor Xiaowen emphasized that they were the
descendants of the Yellow Emperor and declared the restoration of the rule of
Fuxi (伏羲) and Shennong (神農).160 He took advantage of the traditional Han
belief that the ancestors of barbarians were of the same race as the Han, only
exiled to distant lands, thereby aiming both to escape from the hu identity
and to recruit Han literati on a massive scale. This scheme proved successful:
he won over the hearts of the Han literati, who praised Emperor Xiaowen as
a sage ruler161 qualified to be the fourth Sovereign of the Three Sovereigns
(Sanhuang 三皇) and the sixth Emperor of the Five Emperors (Wudi
五帝);162 in addition, Gao Lü (高閭), from a famed family of Bohai (渤海),
46 Han-je Park
recommended that Emperor Xiaowen perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices,
and also said that south of the Yangzi river was not the Central Kingdom.163
By relocating the capital to Luoyang, Emperor Xiaowen laid claim to
being the successor of the Divine Province. The reason why he insisted upon
Luoyang over the much more advantageous Ye (鄴) was that Luoyang had
been the capital of a unified China and was the place where the true meaning
of the Central Kingdom could be manifested;164 in contrast, Ye had been the
capital of rulers who only ruled parts of China, such as Shi Hu or the Murong
family. This, then, was Northern Wei proclaiming itself to be the legitimate
dynasty of the Central Plain and successor to Western Jin.165
Wei divergence from the Five Barbarians was brought to a new level in
Western Wei-Northern Zhou (北周), which was founded upon a coalition
of the local magnates of Guanlong (關隴) and the generals from northern
garrisons. Yuwen Tai (宇文泰) adopted a series of policies engineered via
delicate negotiations between the hu and the Han, restructuring the state
to center on Chang’an instead of Luoyang and designing the official system
according to The Rites of Zhou (Zhouli 周禮), which was believed to originate
from the Three Dynasties period.166 These policies were also an ideological
retort to the Southern Dynasties’ assertion that they were the legitimate
successors. The underlying motive in adopting the official system described
in The Rites of Zhou was to discard the Han-Cao Wei system which was the
basis for the Southern Dynasties’ claim of legitimacy,167 in the sense that
the Western Zhou was an era when the hua and the barbarians were not
separated.168 By enacting policies such as the revival of hu surnames, the
granting of surnames, and the creation of new towns in Guanzhong (關中)
area, he tried to merge both the hu and the Han people into one extended
family or townsfolk,169 marked by mutual pride and communal affinity.170 The
manipulation of lineage, which was a specialty of nomadic people, played
a key role in this pursuit.171 This project resulted in a continuous dynasty
comprising Western Wei-Northern Zhou-Sui-Tang, which some researchers
name “states of fubing system,”172 the fubing system acting as the engine
for the unification and maintenance of the Sui-Tang world empire. The
emergence of the fubing system meant the end of division between the roles
of the hu and the Han in the military.
We encounter another aspect of lineage manipulation in the Northern
Zhou. The Yuwen clan connected their ancestry173 to Shennong,174 and when
he prohibited Buddhism Yuwen Yong (宇文邕), Emperor Wu of the Northern
Zhou, said: “From the entrance of Five Barbarians into China the number of
followers of the Buddhist teaching increased and became extremely popular. I
am not one of the Five Barbarians, so there is no reason to uphold Buddhism,

and this is why I prohibit it.”175 Although it seems strange that he would say
he is not one of the Five Barbarians given that his surname is Yuwen and
he spoke the Xianbei language, this marked the middle phase of the lineage
manipulation project which had begun in the early Northern Wei and was
completed with the publication of The History of the Jin (晉書) by Tang
Taizong.
During the process of nomadic influx into the Central Plain, the merger
between hu peoples happened first, and then between hu and the Han, while
the standards for the identification of race underwent a clear shift from a
criterion based on geography to one based on culture.
3. From a Tuoba dynasty to a zhonghua empire
1) The lineage of the Tang imperial house and its problems

By the time of the Sui-Tang era, a person’s culture played a more important
role than his race.176 The ethnic origin of the Yang (楊) clan of the Sui and the
Li clan of the Tang did not have much to do with their policies. They might
well have descended from prominent Han families, but it is certain that these
clans, a few generations back from the dynastic founders, had lived in the
Wuchuan garrison, north of Yinshan (陰山) mountain for quite a long period
of time. This historical fact seems to have given rise to the suspicion that the
Sui and Tang imperial houses were of barbarian origin.
The suspicion about the origin of the Li clan had existed from the very
beginning of the dynasty, because they had once had the hu surname Daye
(大野).177 The Buddhist monk Falin (法琳) declared before Taizong that the
Tang imperial house originated from Xianbei Tuoba Dadu (達闍 i.e., Li in
Chinese) which was a noble scion of Yinshan, i.e., a barbarian lineage.178
Although Taizong reprimanded Falin,179 during the war of unification an
enemy, Dan Xiongxin (單雄信), called Taizong’s brother Yuanji (元吉) a hu
child,180 and a Tang minister Sun Fuqie (孫伏伽) let slip that when Gaozu Li
Yuan was a child his friends were all queue-haired181 because the royal family
was deeply imbued with hu custom.
The in-laws of the royal family were completely of the hu line. Li Yuan’s
mother was a daughter of Dugu Xin (獨孤信), the Grand Marshal of the
Northern Zhou, and a sister of Empress Dugu of Emperor Wen of the Sui,
making Li Yuan nephew-in-law to Yang Jian (楊堅) and maternal cousin of
Emperor Yang (煬帝). Li Yuan married the daughter of Dou Yi (竇毅), who
was of the Xianbei line and a prefectural commander of the Sui. The mother
48 Han-je Park
of Empress Dou was the elder sister of Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou,
Senior Princess Xiangyang (襄陽長公主).182
The lifestyles of Taizong and his crown prince Chengqian (承乾) were
not much different from those of the hu people. During the incident of
Xuanwu Gate (玄武門), Taizong killed his younger brother Yuanji and made
Princess Yang, Yuanji’s wife, his own; Zhu Xi’s remark on this behavior
is well known.183 Chengqian followed hu custom as well. He stole and
slaughtered cattle and horses, and acted like a Turk qaghan, eating with his
guards, wearing Turkic clothes, and speaking Turkic.184 During Zhenguan
period when the Tang royal ancestral temple was being set up, the ministers
were discussing who should be the progenitor, and Yu Zhining (于志寧)
objected to the suggestion that it be Li Gao (李暠).185 If Li Gao was their true
ancestor, why would the early Tang emperors not want the family of Li Bao
of Longxi (隴西), who were descendants of Li Gao, included in the imperial
clan lineage?186 And why did Gaozong further lower the family rank of Li
Bao? Thus it has been argued that the ancestors of the Tang imperial house
must have been a degraded household of the Lis of Zhaojun (趙郡), or had
just borrowed the surname of Li of Zhaojun.187 Given the fact that Gaozong
suppressed Li Bao and did not honor the lineage of Zhaojun Lis,188 it is most
likely that the actual pedigree of the Tang imperial house was quite different
from what it claimed to be and that it was ethnically non-Han Chinese.
The Tang was ruled by the Han people in name, but in reality was a
multi-racial regime,189 so the Sui-Tang dynasty was still seen as a Xianbei
state by the nomads of Eurasia or the people from the western regions, and
Tang was called Taugas, Tamhaj, or Tabgaĉ which stood for Tuoba.190 The
dynasties from the Dai (代) through Northern Wei and on to the Tang are
separate according to the Chinese-style names for dynasties, but in fact form
a continuous Tuoba state. Considering the continuity and commonality
between these dynasties, placing them under the single heading of the
Tuoba state seems appropriate. In this aspect, westerners from the fifth to
the ninth century who called China Taugas, Tamhaj, or Tabgaĉ, were closer
to the truth.191 Taizong’s acquisition of the title “Heavenly Qaghan” after the
destruction of the Eastern Turks, Gaozong’s being addressed thus by nomadic
rulers,192 and the fact that the majority of the early Sui-Tang imperial clan
and high officials came from the military leaders of northern tribesmen, all
provide further support to the Tuoba state argument.193
2) Fabricating history and the rise of the zhonghua sovereign

The imperial houses of Sui and Tang saw themselves as traditional Han
Chinese, although they were genetically descendants of nomadic tribesmen

such as the Xianbei and others. But no matter how they identified themselves
and their dynasties, few saw them and their dynasties as purely Han Chinese.
It is clear now that the Li house of the Tang did not descend from a
renowned clan, even if they had been Han Chinese. Why then did the Tang
imperial house want to fabricate a lineage to appear as if it had been one of
the renowned Han aristocratic clans? Throughout Chinese history, a certain
degree of sinicization has been necessary for anyone or anything alien to
come to China and earn a place there. This was the case for Buddhism as well
as Nestorian Christianity, but this did not mean they ceased to be Buddhism
or Christianity. In addition to the issue of sinicization, the Wei-Jin-Northern
and Southern Dynasties era was an age of pedigree. Chen Yinke (陳寅恪)
has raised questions about Taizong’s re-publication of the History of the
Jin and his ordering the writing of The Record of Clans and Lineages in the
Zhenguan Reign Period (Zhenguan shizu zhi 貞觀氏族志), suggesting that the
motive behind the omission, among the Sixteen Kingdoms, of Former Liang
(前涼) and Western Liang (西涼) from the History of the Jin was the same as
that behind The Record of Clans and Lineages in the Zhenguan Reign Period:
namely to exalt the Li clan of the Tang and prove that they had a long and
glorious pedigree.194
Many dynastic histories were written during Taizong’s reign; these were
generally dynastic histories from after the era of the Three Kingdoms or from
the History of the Jin, now re-written to conform to Tang legitimacy. The
Tang imperial house strove to dispel the doubt that they originated from the
Xianbei Tuoba tribe, and influenced the planning and compilation of dynastic
histories, sometimes even down to the wording of the contents.
First, let us look at the chronological records (zaiji 載記) of the History
of the Jin. There are thirty chapters of chronological records in the book. The
name originated from The Eastern Watch Records of the Han (Dongguan
Hanji 東觀漢記), written by Ban Gu (班固) under order of Emperor Ming,195
and the number of thirty chapters seems to have been taken from the thirty
chapters of biographies of feudal lords and eminent people (shijia 世家)
in The Records of the Grand Historian. While the shijia is a record for each
feudatory, the zaiji is a chronicle for the independent political entities in
China which were not enfeoffed by the Chinese emperor.196 By including the
Sixteen Kingdoms with the zaiji, Taizong set them in a different category and
treated them as extraneous to the legitimate Jin dynasty, clearly taking the
Han Chinese attitude of degrading alien regimes.
The source for Taizong’s History of the Jin was The Spring and Autumn
50 Han-je Park
Annals of the Sixteen Kingdoms by Cui Hong of the Northern Wei, and in
this book one record was devoted to each state;197 notably, though, two states
which were recorded in the Annals were omitted in the zaiji of the History
of the Jin. They are Former Liang (301–76), which was established by a Han
Chinese, Zhang Gui (張軌) of Anding (安定), and which occupied the Hexi
corridor (河西回廊), and Western Liang (400–421) which was established by
Li Gao of Longxi.198 The latter was the person later manipulated to become
the ancestor of the Tang imperial house, and omitting him and his state199 was
surely Taizong’s intention.
Another example is the compilation of the History of the Southern
Dynasties (南史) and the History of the Northern Dynasties (北史), which
concealed two underlying intentions. The first was to tie the Southern
Dynasties (南朝) and Northern Dynasties (北朝) into one term, the Southern
and Northern Dynasties (南北朝). If Taizong had truly been in favor of the
Han Chinese point of view, he could have given legitimacy to the Southern
Dynasties; but he could not ignore his own racial origins in the Northern
Dynasties, and thus merging the two was the better option. Second, by
including the Sui dynasty, the unifier of China, among the Northern
Dynasties, he wanted to minimize the credit they received for having
accomplished that unification.
Many histories were published in the early Tang. Taizong’s reign saw the
compilation of the so-called History of the Five Dynasties, namely History of
the Liang, History of the Chen, History of the Northern Qi, History of the Zhou,
History of the Sui,200 and in 646 History of the Jin (these six historical works
are known as the Six Histories). Then, during Gaozong’s reign, still under the
shadow of Taizong, the History of the Southern Dynasties and the History of
the Northern Dynasties were completed. Among the twenty-four histories that
are considered official dynastic histories, eight—a third of the total—were
published at this time. Taizong had opened up a new era in Chinese history
publication by beginning the tradition of government-sponsored official
history, and also by permitting the incumbent emperor to inspect the records
about himself, something that had previously been forbidden,201 and giving
instructions on how to write about the incident of Xuanwu Gate.202
Taizong’s manipulation of history was along the same lines as Gao Huan
(高歡) of the Northern Qi, who distorted history and transformed his family
into the renowned Bohai Gao clan; but it was successful. Tang monarchs
managed to transform themselves from racially and culturally hu rulers
into zhonghua emperors to such an extent that people of later times accept
without doubt that the Tang was a legitimate Chinese dynasty.
Taizong’s satisfaction with the effectiveness of official histories is manifest

in the edict ordering the re-publication of History of the Jin: “How great is the
usefulness of historical books!”203
3) Th
e concept of “Han people” and the emergence of “Tang people,” “Hua
people”
The largest ethnic group among the present-day Chinese is the Han people
(Hanren 漢人) or Han race (Hanzu 漢族).204 The term Hanzu only appeared in
the early modern age,205 while the history of the term Hanren is much longer.
Occasional use of the term Hanren can be found in texts from the Han,206 but
the term means no more than the people of the Han dynasty. “Qin people”
(Qinren 秦人) was more generally used instead of “Han people” even in the
Han period, and also in the Northern and Southern Dynasties period: the
Xiongnu and Central Asians’ use of this term to refer to the people of the
Central Plain was due to the lasting impression of Qin unification.
From the Later Han onwards the words hu and “Han” were paired to
represent contrast,207 but here “Han” did not mean the same as Hanren or
the later term Hanzu. Just as the Jin in Yi Jin (夷晉) meant people of the Jin
dynasty (Jinchao ren 晉朝人), the term “people of the Han dynasty” (Hanchao
ren 漢朝人)208 was often used when surrounding peoples referred to the
people of the commandaries and counties (郡縣之民).209 Yet the term hu
seems to have expanded its meaning from exclusively referring to Xiongnu to
a broad sense of the non-Chinese including nomadic peoples, with the usage
of Yi being the same.
The terms Han or Hanren began to be used in a racial/ethnic sense
from the Wei-Jin-Northern and Southern Dynasties period when alien rule
began.210 From the fact that the term “Han” was used despite the fall of the
Han dynasty, we can see that the original connotation of the term, “people of
the Han dynasty,” had already disappeared. We can narrow down the moment
of change to the middle of the Northern and Southern Dynasties period,
around the reign of Emperor Xiaowen of the Northern Wei, because it is at
this point that “Han people” begins to appear paired with Xiongnu, and Han
language (Hanyu 漢語) with Barbarian language (huyu 胡語 or luyu 虜語).211
The change took place because the previous term for the people of
the Central Plain, (people of) the Middle Kingdom (Zhongguo [ren]), had
become ambiguous due to the influx of border peoples into the Central
Plain. Shi Le and Fu Jian based their regimes on the two traditional capitals,
proclaimed themselves to be the rulers of the Middle Kingdom, and took the
unification of China to be their duty,212 and Emperor Taiwu of the Northern
52 Han-je Park
Wei denigrated the Eastern Jin, calling them the presumptuous self-titled
gang of Wu-Chu (吳楚) region, and set unification as his goal;213 and also, as
previously mentioned, many of the so-called barbarian usurpers were just as
or even more versed in learning when compared with the Hanzu emperors,
the supposed protectors of traditional culture.
After “Han” turned into a racial name, it was used as a derogatory
term when tension rose between the hu and the Han.214 The high point of
this tension after the Yongjia Disorders was the period of the rebellion of
Six Garrisons (六鎮). The Xianbei of the Six Garrisons came to possess an
intense racial self-consciousness, calling themselves Xianbei or Northern
people (Beiren 北人) and their language Xianbei language (Xianbei yu) or
the “National Language” (guoyu), in differentiation from Han, Han people
(Hanren), Han language (Hanyu), and the language of hua (huayu 華語).
They drew a strict distinction between the so-called “nature of Han”215 and
the “character of Xianbei” and overcame their previous ethnic inferiority
complex.216 In these circumstances, derogatory terms aimed at the Han, such
as Han children (Han’er 漢兒) or Han dogs (Hangou 漢狗),217 came to be used
by hu.
The tension between the two groups quickly materialized in action. In
527 (Xiaochang 孝昌 3) in late Northern Wei, Ge Rong’s (葛榮) forces attacked
Jizhou (冀州), driving the residents outside the city and forcing sixty to
seventy percent to starve or freeze to death,218 and in 528 attacked Cangzhou
(滄州), killing eighty to ninety percent of the residents.219 The residents must
have been Han people, as Gao Huan referred to the brutalities of Ge Rong’s
rebel forces as “deceiving the Han children” and attributed Ge’s failure to
this.220
The tension was more pronounced in Eastern Wei-Northern Qi than in
Western Wei-Northern Zhou, where a combined group of hu and Han ruled.
The rivalry of Gao Ang (高昂) and Liu Gui (劉貴) is a good example of the
strife between hu and Han in Eastern Wei. Liu was descended from Xiongnu
who had become Xianbei, and he looked down upon Han people. One day he
saw Han workers drowning in the Yellow River and remarked that the life of
a Han man had no monetary value, and so they should be left to die.221 Gao
Ang, a Han Chinese, took a sword and tried to strike him, and Liu Gui ran
away, returned to his camp and mustered his troops to attack Gao.222
In Northern Qi, when the Han side gained the upper hand, Gao
Dezheng (高德政) and Du Bi (杜弼) of the Han elite proposed that more Han
people be recruited. But Gao’s words and actions had an air of deliberate
contempt for the Xianbei people, promoting the appointment of Han with the
aim of eliminating the Xianbei, and as a result he was killed.223 Du Bi was also
killed for saying Xianbei were no good at ruling, and that Han people should
be promoted in their place, which angered Gao Yang (高洋), the Emperor
Wenxuan (文宣帝).224 The fact that the mutual contempt between the parties
was so openly and freely expressed during Northern Qi shows how severe the
fissure between hu and Han was.
Gao Yang’s younger brother Shi (湜), the Prince of Gaoyang (高陽王),
treated with disdain his father-in-law who did not have an official position,
saying “He’s a Han without an official post, and how could I pay respect?”225
The Xianbei did not hesitate to use derogatory vocabulary like “Han worth a
coin” (touqian jia han 頭錢價漢), “Han without an official post” (wu guanzhi
han 無官職漢), “Han child” (haner 漢兒),226 and “what kind of Han lad” (hewu
hanzi 何物漢子)227 against the Han Chinese, and the fact that the Northern Qi
tried to use Han as human shields228 whenever there was war with Northern
Zhou adds further evidence of Xianbei’s studied contempt towards them.
So the term “Han” or “Han people” had strongly negative connotations in
Eastern Wei-Northern Qi society, and was thus the counterpart of the term
hu, the derogatory term which the Han Chinese used for aliens.
In Western Wei-Northern Zhou and Sui-Tang society the terms “Han”
and “Han people” were not used in this disparaging sense. From the Sui-Tang
era and onwards the term fan (蕃) came to be used instead of hu, and han no
longer carried negative implications but found a new place as the counterpart
of fan, which indicated non-Han people. The term fan (藩) simply means
fence, and thus although the term does not imply a completely equal relation
with the Han, it does have the neutral sense of a counterpart or parallel
which is very different from such derogatory terms as the four yi or man, yi,
rong, and di.229 In Sui-Tang times the people of the Central Plain referred to
themselves as Han, in contrast with Fan.230 For example, in accounts of Tang–
Tibet relations we find such expressions as “fan and Han share the border,”231
or “Han people cannot work the field without cattle, while fan people cannot
go anywhere without horse.”232 In line with this change, the combined word
fanhan (蕃漢) came to replace the analogous pairing of the Middle Kingdom
and the four yi.233 Another paired term, huhan (胡漢), had disappeared by
the Song dynasty.234 As the word “Han” began to be used in relation to the
surrounding peoples, the following periods saw the increasing use of “Han” in
a racial context,235 and from then on “Han” became a fixed term for indicating
Chinese, resulting in the establishment of the present-day usage of Hanren or
Hanzu as an ethnonym.
In addition to “Han people” (Hanren), the term “Tang people” (Tangren)
54 Han-je Park
also appeared. The term originally meant people of the Tang dynasty, but was
used more in the sense of an “international person”236 rather than a person
of the Central Plain. We cannot overlook the significance of the emergence
of the term in this international sense, since other possible candidates like
Songren (宋人), Yuanren (元人), Mingren (明人), or Qingren (清人) did not
supplant the use of Tangren. For this reason, a recent author has defined the
concept of Tangren as “not hu, not Han,”237 meaning there was no difference
in the lifestyles of hu and Han: the hu wearing a Han hat and the Han a hu
hat.238 The term Tangren spread much more widely than in the previous era,
even as far as the Arabic lands, thanks to the expansion of Tang culture and
influence overseas. As sea trade gradually gained superiority over land trade,
from the Song onwards people outside China called China Tang and Chinese
Tangren,239 this heritage surviving in the use of the name “Chinatown” for
overseas Chinese, Tangren jie (唐人街).240
Another term worth mentioning in this regard is hua (華) or huaren
(華人 ). The word zhonghua (中華) first appeared during the Wei-Jin era.241
It came into use in astronomy, later coming to mean the middle gate of a
palace,242 and geographically the Central Plain area.243 It became a synonym
for zhongguo and the antonym of the frontier, meaning the interior lands of
commandaries and counties, or the middle plain. In the time of unification
it referred to the whole country, but during the age of division only to the
Central Plain. Zhonghua, then, was a combination of the original core (hua)
xia (華夏) with added geographical concepts such as the Middle Kingdom
(zhongguo 中國) and Central Plain (zhongyuan 中原). Later, however, the
emphasis moved to the Central Plain (zhongyuan), which was the real
meaning of the Middle Kingdom (zhongguo), and became a word which
also signifies the culture flourishing there and the people who preserve and
maintain that culture. The following accounts support this version of the
formation of the meaning of zhonghua: Fu Jian once commented, “It was not
that we [hu] rebelled but that the Jin themselves deserted zhonghua.”244 On
the subject of the zhonghua manner of dress, there was an argument that if
a zhonghua literati belonged to Eastern Jin he would lose the qualification
zhonghua, since he would become a short-haired and tattooed denizen of
Wuyue (吳越) region.245 From these two accounts we can see that being
physically located in the Central Plain and upholding the traditional culture
were important criteria for being zhonghua.246 Nevertheless, the aliens who
immigrated to the Central Plain asserted themselves to be zhonghua, on the
grounds that they occupied the Central Plain and supported the traditional
culture, disparaging the Southern Dynasties as southern fakes.247 By the
end of the Northern Dynasties, people from Xianbei, Wuhuan (烏桓), and
Xiongnu had all been included as literati of zhonghua after demonstrating
their attainments in traditional culture and learning.248 Accordingly, zhonghua
was no longer monopolized by Han Chinese but became a common
possession of all peoples who coexisted with them.249 Thus, in chapter twenty-
two of the Interpretation of Tang Code, Wang Yuanliang (王元亮) of the Yuan
period wrote as follows regarding the definition of zhonghua:250
zhonghua is the Middle Kingdom. Personally accepting the civilizing

transformation of the king and voluntarily belonging to the Middle Kingdom,
the way of dressing dignified and grave, the custom filial and respectful, the body
conforming to the ritual, thus we name him zhonghua. It is not even remotely close
to the customs of barbarians which are scattered hair, wearing clothes opening on
the left, and tattooing.251
The first occurrence of the term huaren seems to be in Jiang Tong’s Treatise on
Relocating the Barbarians:
During Jianwu (建武) period, [the emperor] made Ma Yuan (馬援) the governor of
Longxi and [directed him to] suppress the rebellious Qiang people. The remaining
Qiang people were relocated to Guanzhong and settled in the empty lands of
Fengyi (馮翊) and Hedong (河東) and became mixed with huaren. After a few years
their kind multiplied and relying on their fatness and strength, they again invaded
Hanren and brought suffering.252
Jiang uses two different words, huaren and Hanren, in the same sentence.
Do these refer to two different people? In the Northern Wei period the non-
yi people living in Gaochang (高昌) area were called huaren.253 Then the
word was used as a parallel pair with man,254 with Jihu (稽胡), a branch of
Xiongnu,255 and Xianbei in Eastern Wei-Northern Qi era.256
Similar usage can be observed in the Tang period: the Tangren prisoners
captured by Tibet were called huaren,257 and Tangren who went northward
to the Turks were called huaren.258 If huaren was applied to the people who
entered the Chinese domain in this manner, this is an issue that we cannot
overlook. This topic deserves a separate article in its own right, but my view
is that we can define hua as a cultural concept: not just as someone living in
the same area, but as someone who absorbs Chinese culture and maintains
Chinese order.
From then on zhonghua was used by people in times of political
upheaval—such as during the era of Zhu Yuanzhang (朱元璋) or Sun Wen
56 Han-je Park
(孫文)—as the parallel of hulu (胡虜) or saiwai (塞外), but in general it became
something distinguishable by culture. In the early Republican period, Zhang
Taiyan (章太炎) defined zhonghua as distinguishing between high and low
culture with the division into hua and barbarians (yi),259 and Liang Qichao
(梁啓超) said, “If one meets another race and a concept of ‘we Chinese’ strikes
one right away, he is Zhonghua minzu . . . So all Manchus are now part of
Zhonghua Minguo.”260 We may say, then, that the concept of “the Framework
of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nationality” (zhonghua minzu duoyuan
yiti geju 中華民族多元一體格局), as used in present-day China, began to take
rudimentary form during the Tang period.
CONCLUSION
The entrance of the Five Barbarians into the Central Plain was a grand
historical event of the East; these peoples subsequently become key actors in
the establishment of many dynasties, from the age of the Sixteen Kingdoms
of the Five Barbarians and Northern Dynasties to the Sui-Tang world empire.
Despite the tendency to assimilate the Han and the Tang empires into a
single unit, they were in fact very different with respect to their conceptions
of domain, worldview, and international relations. The Han limited their
domain to within the Great Wall, which came to divide the nation of people
who wore ceremonial caps and belts and were ruled by the emperor from
the nation of people who pulled bows and were ruled by the chanyu. This
reflected the reality that the Han and the Xiongnu were equal neighbors,
and their domains were accordingly divided into the emperor’s and the
chanyu’s. The diplomatic correspondence between them reflects this. But the
Tang empire differed from the Han regarding relations with the nomadic
empires, and the Tang supreme ruler proclaimed himself “Emperor, Heavenly
Qaghan,” reflecting the reality that the Tang ruler’s domain included not only
the agrarian lands of the emperor but also some of the nomadic lands ruled
by the qaghans. I propose that the stone statue Horse Treading upon Xiongnu
at Huo Qubing’s tomb as annexed to Han Wudi’s tomb Maoling, the Stone
Statues of Fourteen Chieftains in front of Tang Taizong’s tomb Zhaoling, and
Statues of Sixty-one Barbarian Subjects standing before Tang Gaozong’s tomb
Qianling, are symbolic of the gap between Han and Tang. The former asserts
that Han and Xiongnu cannot coexist in the same area, while the Tang statues
suggest that nomads could coexist in the emperor’s court.
The Tang emperor exercised rulership over the people within the domain
of the qaghans. The Encyclopedic History of Institutions wrote, “rulership over

the barbarians of the four directions began from here,” meaning that it had
happened for the first time in Chinese history. The period for which the Tang
emperor claimed to be Heavenly Qaghan and exercised rulership befitting the
title did not last long, yet it laid the foundations of an open and cosmopolitan
Tang empire.
Such divergence between the Han and the Tang did not come about
suddenly in the Tang period, but developed gradually during the influx
of the Five Barbarians into the Central Plain. The immigration of these
nomadic groups began after the division of Xiongnu into north and south,
and by the Western Jin era the nomads comprised half the population
of Guanzhong. Fearing impending catastrophe, the Western Jin officials
proposed a relocation policy to send the nomads back to their original lands,
but this was no solution. It was not only impracticable, but also increased
dissension between the two parties. In the end, the catastrophe referred to
as “The Five Barbarians brought chaos to hua” (wuhu luanhua 五胡亂華)
befell the Western Jin, and the Sixteen Kingdoms of the Five Barbarians were
subsequently established. People learned that there was no benefit to either
side from dissension between the hu and the Han, and eventually advanced
to the path of compromise and coexistence, resulting in a mass influx of
northern nomads and western oasis dwellers. In the Northern Wei capital
Luoyang there were more than 10,000 households who came from west of
Pamir, and people from the Western Regions made a significant mark in the
Northern Qi court.
The Tang adopted the policy “All Are the Subjects of Us,” which was
fundamentally different from the Western Jin’s Treatise on Relocation.
There were many high officials of foreign origin in the Tang court, and
fanfang (蕃坊)—residential areas for foreigners—were set up in many places
throughout the empire, including Dunhuang (敦煌), Guangzhou (廣州),
Quanzhou (泉州), and Yangzhou (揚州). Chang’an, as the capital of the world
empire, was overflowing with foreigners.
The emergence of the Tang Empire heralded a shift in worldview. The
Ancient Chinese worldview is often represented by the term liuhe, or the
Six Directions. The term “unifying the Six Directions” was briefly used as a
concept to encompass the agrarian and nomadic lands during the time of the
First Emperor of Qin, but soon changed to mean the unification of China
itself. After the immigration of the Five Barbarians into the Central Plain,
it was replaced by the concept of “hu and yue becoming one family.” The
term symbolized union between the hu who dwelled in the Central Plain
58 Han-je Park
and steppes and the man who dwelled in the southern mountains. Emperor
Xiaowen of Northern Wei identified this ideal as the objective of his policy,
and Taizong of Tang proclaimed the completion of Xiaowen’s vision when he
claimed the title “Emperor, Heavenly Qaghan.”
The qaghan was the supreme ruler of the nomadic world, and the Tang
emperor’s taking of the title was closely related to the northern nomads’
entrance into the middle plain, which had been underway since the previous
age. The influx of nomads meant an influx of those who used the title
“Qaghan.” The first use of the title is thought to be by the Rouran ruler, the
conqueror of the northern steppe, following the decline in authority of the
Xiongnu title chanyu. But recent findings show that the title was also used
by the Tuoba Wei from the early stage of Dai kingdom to the end of the
dynasty. The Rouran proclaimed the revival of the zhonghua by entering into
alliance with the Southern Qi and routing the Tuoba Wei, so expanding the
dominions of the qaghan into the Central Plain. The Tuyuhun, a branch of
Xianbei, used the “Qaghan” title as well. This expansion of the title into inland
China and southwestward stimulated the emergence of the title “Heavenly
Qaghan” in the Tang.
The Tang and the Han are thought to be the greatest empires of Han
Chinese in Chinese history. But suspicions surround the origins of the Tang
ruling elite, including the imperial house of Li. Zhu Xi of Southern Song
even declared that the Tang ruling house was of barbarian origin. Whatever
their genesis, the emergence of the Great Tang empire was certainly the end
product of the influx of the Five Barbarians into the Central Plain, and it
was a branch of the Five Barbarians which built the Tang empire. In the face
of such facts, then, why consider the Tang as a state of Han Chinese? This
illusion was the result of the successful transformation of the Five Barbarians
into zhonghua. It is well known that any foreign element which came to
China had to undergo sinicization in order to take root. Buddhism trod that
path, as did the so-called Three Foreign Religions (san yi jiao 三夷教) which
was popular in Tang times, as well as Nestorian Christianity; but even after
sinicization, Nestorian Christianity was still Christianity: in a similar manner,
the sinicized Five Barbarians should be seen as zhonghua hua (中華化) rather
than Hanhua (漢化).
The Five Barbarians themselves acknowledged that they were different
kinds and maintained their barbarian identity during the early phase of
immigration into China, but gradually took the path of sinicization. The
Yongjia Disorders, for which the Five Barbarians were responsible, initially
had a traumatic impact upon the dynasty of the middle plain. Thus Emperor
Taiwu of Northern Wei proclaimed separation from the Five Barbarians in

order to embrace the Hanren, and Emperor Wu of Northern Zhou announced
that he was not of the Five Barbarians. People of the Western Regions at
the time called the Tang empire Tabgaĉ, which is synonymous with Tuoba,
revealing that they saw the Tang as another dynasty in the line of those built
by the Tuoba people. Tang Taizong played a decisive role in washing away
the thick hu bloodline that ran through the Tang ruling house. He initiated a
government project to re-publish all the official histories of China from the
History of the Jin to the History of the Sui. He sought to stabilize Tang rule by
the manipulation of history and lineage, purposefully omitting the history of
his chosen ancestor Li Gao and his state the Western Liang from the relevant
official history, and sneaking the Sui into one of the Northern Dynasties and
effacing their unifying role, in order to diminish the Sui’s feat of unifying
China. His manipulation was so successful that he was led to exclaim: “How
great is the usefulness of historical books!”
Racial problems surfaced due to the entrance of the Five Barbarians into
the Central Plain, and during the process the racial identity of Han became
defined. Previously, Hanren had just meant people of the Han dynasty, but
as conflict increased between the Five Barbarians and the people of the Han
dynasty, Hanren acquired a new meaning as a term of disparagement by the
hu, especially during the Eastern Wei-Northern Qi era. Yet by Tang times the
term “Han” had found a new place as the counterpart of the newly adopted
word fan. Fan literally means fence, and when set alongside it, the term Han
no longer carried overtones of contempt.
The new term Tangren was the fruit of the open and compromising
character of Tang diplomacy and culture, and the internationality of the
Tang empire. The Tang did not simply accept foreign culture, but used it
as an opportunity to reach outward. The emergence of the term huaren
deserves our attention. This term is closely related with the term zhonghua,
which first appeared during the Wei-Jin period. Zhonghua first meant the
Central Kingdom (zhongguo), specifically the interior commandaries and
counties, but gradually grew into a concept encompassing culture and race,
eventually coming to mean someone who upholds traditional culture in the
Central Plain. From the late Northern Dynasties period, people from Xianbei,
Wuhuan, and Xiongnu identified themselves as zhonghua literati after
attaining traditional culture and learning. In times of political upheaval the
term was used as a counterpart for hulu, but generally it retained the meaning
of any race who upheld the traditional Chinese culture.
In Early Republican era, Zhang Taiyan saw the term huayi as
60 Han-je Park
distinguishing high from low culture, and Liang Qichao asserted that even if
someone is of a foreign race, so long as one can maintain the concept of “us
Chinese” in one’s mind upon meeting him, that person is zhonghua minzu.
Viewing the history of the east from the third century, one sees
continuous waves of reformation and integration enduring for about four
hundred years, flowing over the boundaries of the Central Plain and uniting
the steppe and southern mountains as one. A researcher has lauded this
period as the era of new state movement, transcending hua and yi.261 The
traditional perspective on the immigration of aliens into the Central Plain
in this period has been disparaging, represented in terms like wuhu luanhua
(五胡亂華), siyi luanhua (四夷亂華), or yidi luanhua (夷狄亂華);262 but, in
conclusion, it is interesting to note the recent publication of a book titled
Wuhu Xinghua (五胡興華)—“Wuhu promoting Zhonghua.”263
NOTES
1
The traditional Chinese viewpoint is well represented in Mengzi, 3B4: “I have heard of using
the xia to transform the yi, but have not heard of transforming into yi.”
2
Sima Qian, Shiji 99:2719 and 110:2890. All references to official histories are to the Zhonghua
Shuju editions.
3
Shiji 110:2899.
4
Liu Xu, Jiu Tang shu 194a:5153; and Ouyang Xiu and Song Qi, Xin Tang shu 215a:6028.
5
Du You, Tongdian (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1988), 7:144.
6
Xin Tang shu 50:1344.
7
Jiu Tang shu 4:70.
8
Shiji 6:245.
9
Kim Han-kyu, Cheonha Gukga (Seoul: Sonamu, 2005), 81–83.
10
Shiji 97:2695.
11
Yoshimoto Michimasa, “Chūgoku kodai ni okeru kagi sisō no seiritsu,” in Fuma Susumu hen,
Chūgoku higashi Ajia gaikō kōryūshi no kenkyū (Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku gakujutsu shuppankai,
2007), 19.
12
Chunqiu fanlu xiaoyi (Jinan: Shandong Youyi Chubanshe, 1994), 1:14.
13
Du Tongjian lun (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1998), 1:2.
14
Ban Gu, Han shu 48:2240.
15
Shiji 117:3051.
16
Shiji 126:3206.
17
The debate was not limited to the policy of maintaining a monopoly on salt and iron, but
extended to whether resting with the reality of the peace and stability of the dynasty was preferable
to pursuing the ideal of ultimate peace including the interior and the exterior.
18
Han shu 78:3282.
19
Shiji 110:2902.
20
Han shu 64a:2800.
21
Shiji 110:2894.
22
Shiji 110:2902.
23
Shiji 110:2899.
24
Kurihara Tomonobu, “Kan teigoku to shuhen minzoku,” in Jōdai Nihon taigai kankei no kenkyū
(Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1978), 34–35.
25
Han shu 95:3849.
26
Han shu 55:3851.
27
Tongdian 200:5494.
28
Jiu Tang shu 3:39–40; Xin Tang shu 2:31.
29
Jiu Tang shu 3:59.
30
Jiu Tang shu 120:3462.
31
Luo Xianglin, “Tangdai Tian Kehan zhidu kao,” in Tangdai wenhuashi (Taibei: Taiwan Shangwu
yinshuguan, 1974), 56.
32
Xin Tang shu 219:6183–84.
33
The Tang Huiyao (100:2134) uses the word tongzhi (統制) for lintong (臨統).
34
Luo Xianglin (“Tangdai Tian Kehan zhidu kao,” 56) distinguishes between cases in which the
nomadic chiefs called the Tang emperor “Qaghan” as opposed to “Heavenly Qaghan,” noting that
the former was used in requesting inclusion of their territory into China and its administrative
system, and the latter in concluding alliances between polities whose populations were not listed in
the Tang registry.
35
Xin Tang shu 221b:6256.
36
Luo Xianglin (“Tangdai Tian Kehan zhidu kao,” 56–57) divides the era of the “Heavenly
Qaghan” into three periods: the first lasting from 630 (Zhenguan 4) to 657 (Xianqing 2), up until
the conquest of the Western Turks; the second from 661 (Longshuo 1), when the Tang installed
prefectures in the sixteen states of the Western Regions and Nine Surnames of Zhaowu, to 752
(Tianbao 11), when Gao Xianzhi lost the battle of Talas; and the third from 755 (Tianbao 14),
when An Lushan’s rebellion began, to 781 (Jianzhong 2), when Daizong and Guo Ziwei died.
37
Xin Tang shu 221b:6245.
38
Zhang Jun, “Ping Tian Kehan zhidu shuo,” in Tangdai fanjiang yanjiu (Taibei: Lianjing chuban
shiye gongsi, 1986), 366.
39
Jiu Tang shu 194a:5166.
40
41
42
Tang Taizong had composed a verse, “雪恥酬百王, 除兇報千古.” Quan Tang shi (Beijing:
Zhonghua Shuju, 1960), 1:20.
43
Sima Guang, Zizhi Tongjian, 202:6372–73.
44
Kurihara Tomonobu, “Higashi Ajia shi kara mita ‘Tennō’ kō no seiritsu,” in Jōdai Nihon taigai
kankei no kenkyū, 286.
45
Shiratori Kurakichi, “Kakan oyobi katon shōgō kō,” Tōyō gakuhō 11, no. 3 (1921).
46
Zizhi Tongjian 77:2459.
47
Zhao Wanli, Han Wei Nanbeichao muzhi jishe (Taibei: Dingwen shuju, 1972), vol. 5.
48
Mi Wenping, “Xianbei shishi de faxian yu chubu yanjiu,” Wenwu 1981-2.
49
Lin Lüzhi, Xianbei shi, 2nd ed. (Hong Kong: Bowen shuju, 1973), 367; Park Hanje, “Moklanshi
ui shidae—Bukwi Hyomoonje shigi dae Yuyeon jeonjaeng gwa gwanryeonhayeo,” in Osong Lee
Gongbeom seonsaeng jeongnyeoun ginyeom Dongyangsa ronchong (Seoul: Jisik sanopsa, 1993).
50
Park Hanje, Joongguk Joongse Ho Han cheje yeongu (Seoul: Iljogak), 175.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid., 192–96.
53
Wei shu 101:2233.
54
Xin Tang shu (217a:6116–17) records that Tang Suzong, as “Heavenly Qaghan,” appointed the
62 Han-je Park
Uighur chief as “Qaghan,” indicating that there was a difference in prestige between the two titles.
55
Liu Yitang, “Tian Kehan tanyuan,” in Zhongguo Xiyü yanjiu (Taibei: Zhengzhong shuju, 1997), 96.
56
Tang huiyao 20:458.
57
Lin Tong (Qing), Tang Zhaoling shiji kaolüe, re-quoted from Liu Xiangyang, Tangdai diwang
lingmu (Xi’an: San Qin chubanshe, 2003), 41.
58
Zizhi tongjian 198:6245.
59
Liu Xiangyang, Tangdai diwang lingmu, 55.
60
Wang Shuanghui and Fan Yingfeng, “Tang Qianling yanjiu,” Qianling wenhua yanjiu (Xi’an:
San Qin chubanshe) 1 (2005): 21.
61
Ye Yibao, Jinshi lu bu (Taibei: Xinwenfeng chubanshe, 1982), 22:9098 (vol. 12 of Shike shiliao
xinpian).
62
For Zhao Jie (Song)’s comment regarding the Qianling tu, see Li Haowen, Chang’an zhi tu (Song
Yuan fangzhi congjian) (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1990), 215.
63
Shen Qing’ai (Qing), ed., Shenxi tongzhi 71:43.
64
Adachi Kiroku, Cho’an shiteki no kenkyū (Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1933), 259.
65
Li Qiushi, “Tan Zhanghuai Yide liangmu de xingzhi deng wenti,” Wenwu 1972-7.
66
Zhou Yiliang, “Beiwei yongren jianrong bingbao,” Wei Jin Nanbeichao shi chaji, reprinted in
Zhou Yiliang ji (Shenyang: Liaoning jiaoyu chubanshe, 1998) 2:555–58.
67
Wei shu 23:599.
68
Zhou Yiliang, “Beiwei yongren jianrong bingbao”, 558.
69
Luoyang qielanji 3:161.
70
Luoyang qielanji 4:235–36.
71
Bei Qi shu 34:457.
72
Bei shi 92:3052.
73
Among the three, Han Feng and Gao Anagong are classified as Northern origin favorites since
they were from the founding families of Northern Qi. See Iwamoto Atsushi, “Seisoku to onkō—
Hokusei shakai no bunseki,” Shiteki 18 (1996): 54.
74
Sui shu 14:331.
75
Chen shu 31:409–10.
76
77
Zizhi tongjian 193:6075–77.
78
79
80
81
Sanguo zhi 28:776.
82
Jin shu 47:1320–22.
83
Jin shu 101:2648–49.
84
Tanigawa Michio, Zōho Zui Tō teikoku keisei shi ron (Tokyo: Chikuma shobō, 1998), 30–35.
85
86
87
88
Park Hanje, Joongguk Joongse Ho Han cheje yeongu, 88–94.
89
Zhuangzi jishe (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2000), 85, 496.
90
Kim Han-kyu, Godae Joongguk jeok segye jilseo yeongu (Seoul: Iljogak, 1982), chap. 1.
91
Ibid., 19–20.
92
Zhuangzi, 267, 914.
93
Shiji 6:245.
94
Shiji 87:2545.
95
Shiji 87:2541–42.
96
Shiji 6:239.
97
Shiji 1:11–12.
98
Shiji 6:245–46.
99
Hong Seunghyeon, “Bu Gyeon ui yookhap gaenyeom gwa gwisokmin tongchi,” Hanseong
sahak 24 (2009): 137.
100
Jin shu 48:1340–42; Han shu 72:3063–64.
101
Han shu 22:1054.
102
Jin shu 10:268, 21:656–57, 34:1020–21, 35:1040, 114:2914, 52:1449.
103
Hong Seunghyeon, “Bu Gyeon.”
104
Hong’s basis for this argument is in Zizhi tongjian 103:3267: “(苻堅)報曰: 朕方混六合爲一家, 視夷
狄爲赤子, 汝宜息慮, 勿懷耿介.” Here Fu Jian’s saying “視夷狄爲赤子” is rhetorical emphasis necessary
given concerns of soft treatment towards their former rival Murong, and he was not actually
including the barbarians in the Six Directions.
105
Jin shu 130:3207.
106
Sui shu 4:79.
107
Han shu 27:1472, 32:1831.
108
Han shu 32:1832.
109
110
Shiji 8:385–86.
111
Xin Tang shu 221a:6233.
112
The term was first used during the Qin. See Shiji 83:2473, Han shu 51:2346–47.
113
Wei shu 7b:186.
114
Wei shu 19:461.
115
Song shu 14:346.
116
Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư (Chin Keiwa, ed., Daietsu shiki zensho kōgōbon, Tokyo: Tōkyō daigaku
tōyōbunka kenkyūjo busetsu tōyōgaku bunken senta, 1985), “Annals” chapter 10, the entry of the
seventeenth day of the twelfth month of 1427 (Xuande 2).
117
Sui shu 84:1873.
118
Sui shu 84:1876.
119
Nan Qi shu 59:1023.
120
Nan Qi shu 59:1024–25.
121
Jin shu 92:2373.
122
Shiji 110:2896.
123
Park Hanje, “Joonghwa ui bunyeol gwa ingeun gakgook ui daeung—dajoongjeok Joonghwa
segye ui seongrip,” Joongguk hakbo (2006): 264.
124
The term translated as “nomadic lands” is saiwai (塞外), which indicates a nomadic area in
contrast with the agricultural area. See Nan Qi shu 59:1023.
125
Wei shu 24:617.
126
Shiji 110:2890.
127
Shiji 110:2896, 2897.
128
Sun Guangxian, Beimeng shuaiyan (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2005), 5:97.
129
Tang huiyao 49:1007, Xin Tang shu 135:4577.
130
Song Minqiu (Song), ed., Tang da zhaoling ji, 3:13.
131
Ibid., 10:56.
132
Park Hanje, “Jeon Jin Bu Gyeon jeonggwon ui seonggyuk,” Dong-a munhwa 23 (1985); “Buk
Wi daewoe jeongchaek gwa Ho Han cheje,” Yeoksa hakbo 116 (1987); “Wi Jin—Su Dang shidae Ho
jok goonju ui Joonghwa jewang euroui byeonsin gwajeong gwa geu nonri,” Joong-ang Asia yeongu
9 (2004).
133
Jin shu 113:2884.
64 Han-je Park
134
135
Jin shu 104:2715.
136
Jin shu 104:2721.
137
Jin shu 116:2961.
138
Mengzi, 4B: “孟子曰: 舜生於諸馮, 遷於負夏, 卒於鳴條, 東夷之人也, 文王生於岐周, 卒於畢郢, 西夷之
人也. 地之相去也, 千有餘里, 世之相後也, 千有餘歲, 得志行乎中國, 若合符節, 先聖後聖, 其揆一也.”
139
Jin shu 101:2649.
140
Zhao Yi, Ershiershi zhaji, vol. 8, 晉書 “僭僞諸君有文學.”
141
Jin shu 101:2645–46.
142
Jin shu 101:2652.
143
Jin shu 101:2653–54.
144
Jin shu 102:2657.
145
Jin shu 109:2815.
146
Jin shu 110:2831.
147
Jin shu 127:3161.
148
Jin shu 124:3093.
149
Jin shu 105:2756.
150
151
Jin shu 110:2928.
152
Wei shu 67:1503–4.
153
154
Emperor Taiwu used the phrase “We, Xianbei” (我鮮卑) in a letter to the Liu Song dynasty. See
Song shu 95:2347–48.
155
Yet the Southern Dynasties, Eastern Jin, and others did not distinguish Northern Wei from the
Five Barbarians, since during the Liang dynasty Northern Wei was still called Five Barbarians. See
Luoyang qielanji 2:117–18.
156
During the late Western Jin period, when Liu Yao conquered Luoyang, more than 30,000 were
killed, and when Shi Le defeated the King of Donghai Sima Yue, a massacre of more than 100,000
took place. See Jin shu 5:123, 59:1625.
157
Emperor Taiwu saw Buddhism and Daoism as the same. See Wei shu 114:3034–35.
158
Wei shu 1:1, 2:34, 108–1:2734.
159
Wei shu 108-1:2744–47. See Lü Simian, Liang Jin Nanbeichao shi (Taibei: Kaiming shudian,
1969), 1470–72, for the meaning of the policy of Emperor Xiaowen.
160
Wei shu 1:1, 114:3034.
161
Nan Qi shu 57:991–92. In the records, Li Yuankai was speaking against Emperor Xiaowen, but
still betrays the Northern Wei Han elites’ pride in the dynasty.
162
Wei shu 62:1394–96.
163
Wei shu 54:1208.
164
Lu Yaodong, “Bei Wei Xiaowendi qiandu yu qi jiating beijü,” Cong Pingcheng dao Luoyang
(Taibei: Lianjing chuban shiye gongsi, 1979), 104–5; W. J. F. Jenner, “Northern Wei Loyang: An
Unnecessary Capital?” Papers on Far Eastern History 23 (1981): 164–65.
165
This was the reason why the Wei shu called the Eastern Jin “fake” (僭偽) rather than “barbarians
of the isles” (島夷).
166
Zheng Qiao, Tongzhi (Taibei: Xinxing shuju, 1963), 30:484.
167
The accession edict of Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou praised Yuwen Tai’s adoption of the
Rites of Zhou as an achievement equaling that of the Duke of Zhou. See Zhou shu 5:64.
168
Miyazaki Ichisada, Kuhon kanninhō no kenkyu—Kakyo zenshi (Kyoto: Dōhōsha, 1956), 490.
169
Park Hanje, “Seo Wi Buk Joo shidae Ho Han cheje ui jeongae—Ho seong jaehang ui
gyeonggwa wa geu euimi,” Joonggook hakbo 42 (2000): 68.
170
Ibid., 74–75.
171
Park Hanje, “Xi Wei Bei Zhou shidai de sixing yu xiangbing de fubing hua,” Lishi yanjiu (1993–
94).
172
Tanigawa Michio, “Fuheisei kokka ron,” Zōho Zui Tō teikoku keisei shi ron (Tokyo: Chikuma
shobō, 1998).
173
Most probably they were remote descendants of the Xiongnu southern chanyu. See Zhou
Yiliang, “Lun Yuwenshi zhi zhongzu,” Wei Jin Nanbeichao shi lunji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1963).
174
Zhou shu 1:1.
175
Guang hong ming ji (Taibei: Zhonghua shuju, 1970), 10:3b–4a.
176
Wan Shengnan, Chen Yinke Wei Jin Nanbeichaoshi jiangyanlu (Guiyang: Guizhou renmin
chubanshe, 2007), 197–248.
177
Nunome Chōfū, “Zui Tō teigoku no seiritsu,” Iwanami kōza sekai rekishi 5 (Tokyo: Iwanami
shoten, 1970), 263–64.
178
Yan Cong (Tang), Tang hufa shamen Falin biezhuan, cited in Chen Yinke, “Li Tang shizu zhi
tuize,” Jinmingguan conggao 2 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1980), 283.
179
Quan Tang wen (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983), 6:77-ab.
180
Liu Su (Tang), Sui Tang jiahua (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1979), vol. a:9.
181
Jiu Tang shu 75:2636–37.
182
The Southern Xiongnu had continuously maintained their influence over North China after
destroying the Western Jin in the early fourth century. The empress of the first Tang emperor Li
Yuan, Empress Du, was from Southern Xiongnu, and the Tang relied upon the military strength
of the Turks as well as Southern Xiongnu during its rise as a dynasty. See Iwami Kiyohiro, “Tō
no kengoku to Hunnu no hiyazu,” Tō no hoppō mondai to kokusai chitsujyo (Tokyo: Kyūko shoin,
1997), 17–63.
183
Zhuzi yulei (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1994), 136:3245.
184
Xin Tang shu 80:3564–65.
185
Jiu Tang shu 78:2693–94. Yu presented an indirect objection on the basis that Li Gao was a
remote ancestor and had made no contribution to the founding of the dynasty, but his real target
was to argue against Taizong’s manipulations of genealogy.
186
187
Chen Yinke, Tang dai zhengzhishi shulun gao (Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1982), vol. a:11.
188
Quan Tang wen 31:353ab.
189
Fei Xiaotong, Zhonghua minzu de duoyuan yiti geju (Beijing: Zhongyang minzu xueyuan
chubanshe, 1989), 14.
190
Henry Yule and Henri Cordier, Cathay and the Way Thither: Being a Collection of Medieval
Notices of China, 4 vols. (London: Hakluyt Society, 1914), 1:29.
191
Sugiyama Masaaki, trans. Lee Jinbok, Yumokmin i bon segyesa—minjok gwa gookgyeong ul
neomo (Seoul: Hakminsa, 1999), 198–99 (originally Yubokumin kara mita sekaishi—minzoku mo
kokkyō mo koete, Tokyo: Nihon Keizai shimbunsha, 1997).
192
Okada Hidehiro, Sekaishi no tanzō (Tokyo: Chikuma shobō, 1992), 161.
193
Yoshioka Makoto, “Zui Tō zenki ni okeru shihai kaisō,” Shigaku kenkyu 155:1982.
194
Chen Yinke, “Li Tang shizu zhi tuize,” Jinmingguan conggao 2 (Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1980),
291–94.
195
The zaiji contain records of rebels of late Xin. See Hou Han shu 40a:1333–34.
196
As the Wudai shiji has ten volumes of shijia and shiguo shijia nianpu (十國世家年譜) set for the
ten regional regimes, the shiguo (十國), zaiji, and shijia are similar categories.
197
The Spring and Autumn Annals of Sixteen Kingdoms, or Shiliu chunqiu, was lost during the
Song dynasty, and the surviving edition of 100 chapters is a forgery from Ming period written by
Du Qiaosun and Xiang Lin. Later in Qing, Tang Qiu supplemented it with reliable sources.
66 Han-je Park
198
Li Gao of Western Liang was included in Cui’s annals (Wei shu 67:1502–3), and is still included
in Tang Qiu’s revision.
199
Of course the Five Barbarians and Sixteen Kingdoms should not automatically be considered
to have a connection, but most of the Sixteen Kingdoms are dynasties founded by the Five
Barbarians, and being included within would not be considered an honor.
200
In 629, the Inner Secretariat was established to compile the History of the Five Dynasties
(wudai shi). Later the History Office was set up to write the dynastic history and the Inner
Secretariat was abolished.
201
Ershiershi zhaji, vol. 19, 天子不觀起居注.
202
Taizong asserted that his actions were along the same lines as the renowned duke of Zhou and
Ji You, who both had to kill their own siblings for the good of the dynasty. See Zhenguan zhengyao
7:223–24.
203
Tang da zhaoling ji 81:422.
204
The term Hanzu derived from the dynastic name Han, but the term was used only from the
modern era, and earlier than this the term Hanren was used instead, which began to carry ethnic
meaning during the Northern dynasties. See Du Yuheng, “Zhonghua minzu yingquli lunlue,”
Zhongguo minzu xuehui di sici xueshu taolunhui lunwenji (Beijing: Zhongyang minzu xueyuan
chubanshe, 1993), 18. Instead of the term minzu, a modern newcomer, traditionally terms like ren,
zhongren, zulei, buluo, and zhongluo were used.
205
Although Lü Simian and Lü Zhenyu argue the Chinese only began to be called “Han” in the
Han dynasty, they have in mind the precise term Hanren; the first appearance of the term Hanzu
is in a work by Li Shixian, the Taiping Shi King, entitled Zhi geguo lingshi shu, followed by a
discourse on the five races during the Xinhai revolution. Thus it seems that the term huzu also
stems from this period. See Lü Simian, Xian Qin shi (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1983), 22;
Lü Zhenyu, Zhonghua minzu jianshi (Beijing: Sanlian shudian, 1950), 19; and, on the latter point,
Xu Jieshun, “Han minzu xingcheng sanbuqu,” Han minzu yanjiu 1 (Nanning: Guangxi renmin
chubanshe, 1989), 178.
206
Han shu 61:2701.
207
Hou Han shu 73:2363.
208
The term yi Jin still coexisted, so the term hu Han was not yet fixed in its racial meaning. See
Chang Ju (Jin), Huayang guozhi xiaobu tuzhu (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1987), 3:216.
209
Chen Liankai, “Zhongguo, Huayi, Fanhan, Zhonghua, Zhonghua minzu—yige nei zai lianxi
fazhan bei renshi de guocheng,” Zhonghua minzu duoyuan yiti geju (Beijing: Zhongyang minzu
xueyuan chubanshe, 1989), 97.
210
Li Ziming, “Taohua sheng jie yan riji,” Yuemantang riji 29:51b–52a.
211
Nan Qi shu 47:819, 57:985.
212
Jin shu 105:2753.
213
Wei shu 2:37.
214
The term Hanren along with other words such as Hangou (漢狗), yiqianhan (一錢漢), and Hanzi
(漢子) began to be used as curse-words from the Five Barbarians period. See Kuwabara Jitsuzō,
“Rekishi jō yori mita nanboku Sina,” Tōyō Bunmeishi ronsō (Tokyo: Kōbuntō, 1934), 50.
215
Bei Qi shu 5:73.
216
217
Bei shi 92:3053.
218
Wei shu 9:247.
219
Wei shu 9:249.
220
Bei Qi shu 1:7.
221
頭錢價漢, 隨之死.
222
Bei shi 31:1146–47.
223
Bei Qi shu 30:410.
224
Bei Qi shu 24:353.
225
Bei Qi shu 10:138.
226
Bei Qi shu 22:322.
227
Bei Qi shu 23:332.
228
Tongdian 200:5495.
229
For the meaning of the character fan, see 釋文 (“蕃本又作藩”), 書經 (“以蕃王室”), and 國語
(“以蕃為軍”). We can assume from the meaning of the word that its emergence during the Tang to
represent all the minority peoples signifies the development of the Tang emperor into the “Emperor,
Heavenly Qaghan” who now incorporates the nomadic hu lands as the fence of the realm as well
as the agricultural Han lands. See Chen Liankai, “Zhongguo,” 99–100. This shift is related to the
Tang installment of “loose rein prefectures” (羈縻州), which Tanigawa emphasizes as the signature
institutional characteristic of the Sui-Tang world empire (Tanigawa Michio, Zōho Zui Tō teikoku
keisei shi ron, 16), and the new Greater China policy which diverged from the previous frontier
policy. The shift of terms from Hu Han to Fan Han seems to be due to these circumstances.
230
Jiu Tang shu 67:2492. Among the descendants of Li Jingye, grandson of Li Ji, there was one
named Xu Sheren (Li Ji’s original surname was Xu, but he was given the imperial clan name due to
merit) who fled to Tibet after Li’s execution. He called himself Hanren.
231
232
Jiu Tang shu 196b:5247.
233
Chen Liankai, “Zhongguo,” 96.
234
Deng Xiaonan, “Odae, Song cho Hwabuk jiyeok Ho hwa moonje ui haeso,” Wi Jin Soo Dang sa
yeongu 10 (2003); “Lun Wudai Songchu Hu Han yujingde xiaojie,” Wenshizhe (2005-5).
235
In Jin shi 75:1715, 契丹漢人久為一家. In 番漢合時掌中珠, a Xi Xia dictionary, 不會漢語, 則豈入漢
人之情. The people of the Central Plain were also called Hanren in the Yuan period.
236
Xu Jieshun, “Han minzu xingcheng sanbuqu,” 178.
237
Fu Yongqu, “Lun Tangdai Hu Han minzu zhi jian de hunrong hubu,” Shandong daxue xuebao
(1992-3).
238
Da Tang xin yu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986), 9:138.
239
240
Muramatsu Kazuya, “Tōjin kō,” (Tōkyō doritsu daigaku) Jinbun gakuhō 98 (1974).
241
Wang Shumin, “Zhonghua minghao suoyuan,” Zhongguo lishi dili luncong 2 (1985): 12–13.
242
Jin shu 11:292.
243
Jin shu 61:1674–75.
244
245
246
Zhang Chang retorted that the Southern Dynasties were the upholders of traditional culture.
See Song shu 59:1602.
247
Wei shu 60:1341.
248
249
Du Yuheng, “Zhonghua minzu,” 18.
250
Tanglü suyi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983), reprinted as an appendix in Wang Yuanliang,
Shiwen 3:626; Chen Liankai, “Zhongguo,” 108; Dai Jianguo, “Songren jizhang zhidu tanxi,” Lishi
yanjiu (2007-3): 42n7.
251
Hong Hao, Songmo jiwen, Congshu jicheng chubian (Zhonghua shuju, 1985), vol. a:5.
252
Jin shu 56:1531.
253
Wei shu 101:2243.
254
Bei shi 95:3156.
255
Bei shi 96:3194.
68 Han-je Park
256
Sui shu 24:676.
257
258
259
Zhang Taiyan, “Zhonghua minguo jie,” in Taiyan wenlu chubian, Zhangshi congshu b (Taibei:
Shijie shuju, 1985), appendix 1:781.
260
Liang Qichao, “Zhongguo lishi shang minzu zhi yanjiu,” in Yinbingshi wenji (Kunming: Yunnan
jiaoyu chubanshe, 2001), 3211.
261
Sugiyama Masaaki, Yumokmin, 204.
262
Jin shu 56:1529–34.
263
Liu Xuediao, Wuhu xinghua—xingshuo Zhongguo lishide yizu (Taibei: Zhishufang chubanshe,
2004).

From Barbarians To The Middle Kingdom TH PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Barbarians To The Middle Kingdom TH PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Barbarians to the Middle Kingdom:

The Rise of the Title “Emperor, Heavenly

*Seoul National University (Seoul, Korea)

Journal of Central Eurasian Studies, Volume 3 (October 2012): 23–68

2 AD, with a figure of 12 million households,5 while the Tang population

I. “EMPEROR” AND “EMPEROR, HEAVENLY QAGHAN”

Han Empire’s worldview, especially towards the nomadic peoples, became

2. “ The Emperor, Heavenly Qaghan” and the statues of subjects at imperial

1) The title “Qaghan” and its nomadic features

using the title “Qaghan.”29 Later still, in 765 (Yongtai 永泰 1) of Daizong

conquered. Subsequently, after 661 (Longshuo 龍朔 1), the Tang established

Next, the Statues of Sixty-one Vassal Subjects at Qianling. The disparity in

II. FROM DISCRIMINATION TO GRAND HARMONY

As the Stone Statues of Fourteen Chieftains and Statues of Sixty-one Barbarian

The Six Directions, or liuhe (六合), is a way of understanding the world

Three Kingdoms period the Six Directions excluded the barbarians, in Fu

I have argued in another article that a multi-layered zhonghua world became

manner similar to the previous Xiongnu–Han relations.125 However, although

1. Breaking away from “different species of barbarians”

2. “I am not one of the Five Barbarians”: Implications

am not one of the Five Barbarians, so there is no reason to uphold Buddhism,

3. From a Tuoba dynasty to a zhonghua empire

1) The lineage of the Tang imperial house and its problems

2) Fabricating history and the rise of the zhonghua sovereign

Chinese, although they were genetically descendants of nomadic tribesmen

Taizong’s satisfaction with the effectiveness of official histories is manifest

zhonghua is the Middle Kingdom. Personally accepting the civilizing

of the qaghans. The Encyclopedic History of Institutions wrote, “rulership over

Taiwu of Northern Wei proclaimed separation from the Five Barbarians in

You might also like

2. “ The Emperor, Heavenly Qaghan” and the statues of subjects at imperial