The Manchu Identification of Jurchen Clan Names As Found in the "Manjusai da sekiyen-i kimcin" (Manzhou yuanliu kao)

The following HTML text was created from the original print version. Although care has been taken to transcribe the original correctly, errors may remain. Please refer to the PDF as the text of record for citation. If you encounter a mistranscription, please report it to the editor ([email protected].)

Jurchen clan names have already been analysed by various scholars.[1] The problems which have emerged are numerous and have been summarized by Herbert Franke, who concludes that "...There exists as yet no study of Jurchen personal and clan names [...]. Much remains to be done in this field."[2] A source which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been taken into consideration is the list of clan names[3] found in the seventh chapter of the Manchu version of the Manzhou yuanliu kao 滿洲源流考, i. e. the extremely rare Manjusai da sekiyen-i kimcin. Following the spirit which inspired the compilation of this work[4] (willing to prove the historical and ethnic continuity from the earliest inhabitants of Manchuria till the Manchus themselves) the compilors "identified" the Jurchen clan names with the Manchu clans as registered in the Jakun gūsai Manjusai mukūn hala be uheri ejehe bithe (Baqi Manzhou shi zu tongpu 八旗滿洲氏族通譜).[5] The rich fantasy of Qianlong scholars in drawing linguistic conclusions and neologisms is well-known, and this can also be seen also in the most part of their "identifications", where the lack of scientific criteria is self-evident.

In the list below the Chinese transcription of Jurchen clans is given according to the Manzhou yuanliu kao; then follows the Manchu rendering according to the Manjusai da sekiyen-i kimcin. The third column gives the "Manchu identification" according to the same work. Finally, Chinese equivalents according to the Chinese version are added in brackets.

As can be easily seen, this list (based on the Jinshi) and its "identifications" contain a lot of questionable or - better - "curious" facts. The most curious one is found with reference to the clans "Banwuli" (identified with the enigmatic "Bar"-clan) and "Ali", for which the Chinese version gives the characters "Ama" 阿馬. By checking these names in the punctuated edition[10] of the Jinshi, however, a quite different subdivision of the characters is found: 阿里辦 A-li-ban and 兀里坍 Wu-li-tan. The Manchu compilers divided these six characters in "Ali" 阿里 and with the third character (ban) created the "Ban-wu-li" 辦兀里 clan, ignoring the last character "tan" 坍. Furthermore, the "Du-hu-shu-lu"-clan (for which the obviously wrong identification "Duktari" is given) is divided into two clans in the Jinshi, i.e. the Duhu 獨虎 and Shulu 兀魯 clans. The Zhuhu and Zhun'ge clan-names are given as variants of the same Manchu Juge clan, while the Jinshi views them as two distinct clans. The Jinshi mentions also the Tuoman 陀滿 and Zhan'ge 粘割 clans, which are missing in our work. Noteworthy is also the Manchu reconstruction into two distinct components of the Yinian and Monian clans, i. e. I Nian and Mo Nian.

It will be the task of further research to establish in which cases the results of Qianlong's "linguists" are the product of their own fantasy and in which (rare) instances their conclusions might contribute to a more detailed understanding of Jurchen clan names.

1. One of the best studies is still that of Chen Shu 陳述， Jinshi shibu wuzhong 金史拾補物種， Peking

   1960.

2. Herbert Franke, "Chinese Texts on the Jurchen. A Translation of the Jurchen Monograph in the San-ch'ao

   pei-meng hui-pien", Zentralasiatische Studien 9 (1975), pp. 119-186. Quoted from p.140. The article has

   been reprinted in Herbert Franke and Hok-lam Chan, Studies on the Jurchen and the Chin Dynasty, Aldershot-

   Brookfield 1997, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Variorum Collected Studies Series CS591, same pagination. For

   a commented bibliography see Daniel Kane, The Sino-Jurchen Vocabulary of the Bureau of Interpreters,

   Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series 153, Bloomington 1989, esp. pp. 38-41.

3. The number of Jurchen clans differs (31-112) according to the sources: see p. 285 in Herbert Franke, "The

   Chin Dynasty", in Herbert Franke and Denis Twitchett (eds.), The Cambridge History of China, Cambridge

   University Press, vol. 6: "Alien regimes and border states, 907-1368", Cambridge 1994, pp. 215-320.

4. For the Manzhou yuanliu kao, see Pamela Kyle Crossley, "Manzhou yuanliu kao and the Formalization of

   the Manchu Heritage", Journal of Asian Studies 46/4 (1987), pp. 761-790.

5. It is noteworthy that the following "identifications" are recorded in the chapters devoted to the Mongol clans:

   Wangjab, Cemgūn, Usin, Borjik, Jot, Naya, Tolote, Jodomu, Besu. The following clan names are not found

   neither in the Manchu nor in the Mongol chapters: Abuha, Hoit, Hoihan, Uksun, Šugusu, Jurgan, Ada,

   Noyan, Nimalan, Ȗndusun, Aisin, Nak, Gulhun, Sohon, Sime, Aiman, Mo Niyan, I Niyan, Tono, Sube-

   liyen, Ali. Uncertain (due to misprints?) are the following names: Šurtu - man. Šurdu; Botis - mo. Bodis; Bar

   - man./mo. Bari; Fuseli - ma. Fusiri/Fusere?; Tunggi - ma. Tungki; Dukta - ma. Dukda; Asu - mo. Asut;

   Yasu Bui - mo. Yasu?; Oton - man. Oto?. (For "Bar" and "Ali" see the final remarks in this paper).

6. The text simply says: "written according to the original" - da bithei songkoi araha. In the Chinese version,

   the characters for "Ama" are given, where -ma must be understood as a misprint for -li as seen from the

   Manchu text. For another interpretation, see the final remarks in this paper.

7. In the first variant it is specified that it is registered "according to the original" - da bithei songkoi araha.

8. For the royal Wanyan clan no linguistic expianations are offered.

9. In the punctuated Jinshi edition (see note 10) this name is understood to refer to two clan-names, i. e.

   "Wozhun" and "Ba" (p. 1229) - i.e. most probably a misprint.

10. Zhonghua shuju 中華書局 edition, Peking 1975, vol. 4, chapter 55, pp. 1229-1230.