Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:10:59.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CATEGORIZING LABORERS: GLIMPSES OF QIN MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENT FROM LIYE, HUNAN PROVINCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2021

Tsang Wing Ma
Tsang Wing Ma*
Affiliation:
Tsang Wing Ma, 馬增榮, University of Macau; email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The excavation of the Qin wooden documents from Well No. 1 at Liye 里耶, Hunan province has significantly reshaped our knowledge of Qin history. This article examines a multi-slip manuscript from Liye on the Qin management of human resources in a newly conquered area, Qianling County. The manuscript is the best example of the multi-layered structure of a Qin administrative document; it also sheds new light on the difficulties the Qin encountered in resource management during the early years of unification. The manuscript shows that the responsible officials in Qianling County had failed to engage tuli 徒隸 (laborer-servants)—a major labor source in the Qin—in agricultural production, which appears to have deviated from the Qin strategy of managing human resources. To minimize the harmfulness that this deviation might cause, the Qin heavily relied upon a system of supervision and punishment. This article offers a contextualized study of the manuscript with an analysis of the related Qin excavated sources.

提要

提要

里耶出土的秦代文書檔案極大地重塑我們對秦代歷史的認識。本文旨在深入討論該遺址出土一份關於「新地」人力資源管理的冊書。該份冊書不但如實反映了秦代文書的多重結構，而且透露了秦在統一初期在資源管理上遇到的困難。從這份冊書所見，遷陵縣的負責官員未有命令當時的主要勞動力──徒隸──投入耕種活動。然而，這顯然有違秦的人力資源管理策略。為了把其損害減至最低，秦依靠監察和懲罰作為兩種並行不悖的手段。結合其他秦代史料，本文將仔細討論此份冊書，以及復原其歷史脈絡。

Keywords

QinLiyeQianling Countytuliresource managementmulti-slip manuscript秦里耶遷陵縣徒隸資源管理冊書
Type
Research Article
Information
Early China , Volume 44 , September 2021 , pp. 351 - 391
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Study of Early China and Cambridge University Press 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Earlier drafts of this article were presented at the 19th Annual Southeast Early China Roundtable, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, October 30–November 1, 2016; and at the Creel reading workshop, the Creel Center for Chinese Paleography, University of Chicago, November 6–7, 2016. I wish to thank Robin D. S. Yates, Anthony J. Barbieri, Thies Staack, Chun Fung Tong, King-fai Tam, and two anonymous Early China reviewers for their valuable comments. This research is partially supported by the Start-up Research Grant (ref no. SRG2019-00172-FAH) at University of Macau.

References

1 Shangjun shu zhuizhi 商君書錐指, ed. Jiang Lihong 蔣禮鴻 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1986), 44. Translation after Pines, Yuri, The Book of Lord Shang: Apologetics of State Power in Early China (New York: Columbia University Press, 2017), 159Google Scholar.

2 Shangjun shu zhuizhi, 44; Pines, The Book of Lord Shang, 159.

3 Shangjun shu zhuizhi, 87; Pines, The Book of Lord Shang, 266.

4 Shi ji 史記 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959), 68.2237. For the various opinions on the authorship of the Book of Lord Shang, see Shangjun shu zhuizhi, appendix “Shangjun shu fukao” 商君書附攷. Note that the modern concept of authorship did not exist in ancient China. It was common among early Chinese texts that the compilation of a text spans a long period of time and the disciple(s) or follower(s) of the person to whom the text is attributed are the person(s) who actually compiled the text. As Li Ling 李零 suggests, it seems inappropriate to apply the concept “forged text” (weishu 偽書) to describing these texts. See his Jianbo gushu yu xueshu yuanliu 簡帛古書與學術源流 (Beijing: Sanlian, 2008), 208–16. Yuri Pines also suggests that most of the extant texts of the Warring States period bear the imprint of at least four contributors: the original author, his disciples and followers, later editors, and the manifold copyists and transmitters. See his The Book of Lord Shang, 34.

5 For a study of this document, see Hongtao, Yu, “Liye jian ‘sikong Yan fu lingtian dangzuo’ wenshu yanjiu” 里耶簡「司空厭弗令田當坐」文書研究, Gudai wenming 10.1 (2016.1), 68–75Google Scholar. However, Yu fails to explore the historical value of this document and therefore has left many important issues unaddressed.

6 For the archaeological report on the Liye site, see Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 湖南省文物考古研究所, ed., Liye fajue baogao 里耶發掘報告 (Changsha: Yuelu, 2007). Up to 2017, the excavators officially had published 6,050 pieces or fragments of Qin slips and tablets from the 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th levels of Well No. 1. See Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Liye Qin jian (yi) 里耶秦簡 (壹) (Beijing: Wenwu, 2012); id., Liye Qin jian (er) 里耶秦簡 (貳) (Beijing: Wenwu, 2017). All the transcriptions of the Liye materials in this paper follow these two volumes unless otherwise stated. Notably, the excavators are currently using two types of slip numbers: a transcription number and an archaeological number. This paper mainly uses the transcription number except in cases when no transcription number is provided by the excavators. In such cases, I will use square brackets [ ] to distinguish the archaeological number from the transcription number. Also note that the graph + between two slip numbers is not part of the original transcription or archaeological numbers but employed by scholars to associate fragmentary slips. In addition to those Qin slips and tablets excavated from Well No. 1, 51 fragments of Qin wooden registers were found in Pit No. 11 located in the north of the site in 2005. See Liye fajue baogao, 203–10.

7 Concerning the dating of Well No. 1, Liu Rui 劉瑞 questions the common assumption that it was discarded in the late Qin. He observes that there is a semi-circular roof tile (tongwa 筒瓦) (J1[17]:1) dated to the Western Han 漢 period discovered in the 17th level of Well No. 1. That is to say, all the 16 levels above the 17th level could not have been discarded earlier than the Western Han period. Liu has asked the excavators about the details of that roof tile, but unfortunately has received no reply from them. See Liu, “Liye gucheng J1 maicang guocheng shitan” 里耶古城 J1 埋藏過程試探, in Liye gucheng Qin jian yu Qin wenhua yanjiu 里耶古城‧秦簡與秦文化研究, ed. Zhonggou shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 中國社會科學院考古研究所 (Beijing: Kexue, 2009), 92, 97, n. 7.

8 The dichotomy of jian 簡 and du 牘 is a common way to categorize bamboo and wooden slips and tablets in the existing scholarship. Most scholars consider that a du is of greater width compared to a jian. For instance, Michael Loewe considers a du to be of 4 cm width or more. See his “Wood and Bamboo Administrative Documents of the Han Period,” in New Sources of Early Chinese History: An Introduction to the Reading of Inscriptions and Manuscripts, ed. Shaughnessy, Edward L. (Berkeley: Society for the study of Early China and the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1997), 166Google Scholar. However, Sumiya Tsuneko 角谷常子 observes that some of the slips named du from Liye are less than 2 cm wide. She therefore refers to du as “single slip” (tandoku kan) which is not bound with other slips and is to be used individually. See her “Riya Shin kan niokeru tandokukan nitsuite” 里耶秦簡における単独簡について, Nara shigaku 奈良史学 30 (2012), 107–9. For more on the difference between single-slip and multi-slip documents, see also Staack, Thies, “Single- and Multi-Piece Manuscripts in Early Imperial China: On the Background and Significance of Terminological Distinction,” Early China 41 (2018), 245–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 For the use of marks on bamboo and wooden slips, see Junming, Li 李均明 and Jun, Liu 劉軍, Jiandu wenshu xue 簡牘文書學 (Nanning: Guangxi jiaoyu, 1999), 60–88Google Scholar. See also Barbieri-Low, Anthony J. and Yates, Robin D. S., Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China: A Study with Critical Edition and Translation of the Legal Texts from Zhangjiashan Tomb no. 247 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 58–62Google Scholar.

10 Chen Wei, ed., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (diyi juan) 里耶秦簡牘校釋 (第一卷) (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2012), 217. For the materials from the 9th level, see id., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (dier juan) 里耶秦簡牘校釋 (第二卷) (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2018). All the associations of the fragments of Liye materials follow these two volumes unless otherwise stated.

11 Chen Yinchang, “Liye Qin jian 8-1523 bianlian he 5-1 judou wenti” 里耶秦簡 8-1523 編連和 5-1 句讀問題, Jianbo wang 簡帛網 (www.bsm.org.cn/show_article.php?id=1794), accessed on February 6, 2018. For another proposal of the reconstruction of this document, see Kiyoshi, Miyake 宮宅潔, “Guanyu Liye Qin jian 8-755-759 jian yu 8-1564 jian de bianlian” 關於里耶秦簡 8-755~759 簡與 8-1564 簡的編聯, trans. Chen Jie 陳捷, Jianbo 18 (2019), 29–36Google Scholar.

12 The two horizontal lines (=) placed below or to the right of a character indicate that such a character should be read twice. But in some contexts, it can also indicate a ligature (hewen 合文). See Li and Liu, Jiandu wenshu xue, 64–69; Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society, 61.

13 All the conversions from Chinese lunar to Western corresponding dates in this article are based on the conversion tables in Xu Xiqi 徐錫祺, Xi Zhou (gonghe) zhi Xi Han lipu 西周(共和)至西漢曆譜 (Beijing: Beijing kexue jishu, 1997), 1257–58, complemented by Zhang Peiyu 張培瑜, “Genju xinchu liri jiandu shi lun Qin he Han chu de lifa” 根據新出曆日簡牘試論秦和漢初的曆法, Zhongyuan wenwu 2007.5, 73. For a reconstruction of the Qin calendar based on the Liye materials, see Yan, Zhao 趙岩, “Liye Qin jiri jiandu zhaji” 里耶秦紀日簡牘劄記, Jianbo 8 (2013), 250Google Scholar.

14 Unless otherwise stated, all the translations of official titles in this article follow Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society, sec. 1.6.

15 Barbieri-Low and Yates convincingly argue that dang 當 (matching) was a specific legal process in which the appropriate punishment was “matched” to the crime. The word dang acts as both a verb and a noun in the Zhangjiashan legal texts. See Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society, 164, n. 218. But considering the various usages of the word dang in transmitted and excavated texts, I will only translate it into “to match” or “matching” when it appears as a legal process. For the other usages of the word dang in classical Chinese, see Hanyu da zidian bianji weiyuanhui 漢語大字典編輯委員會, ed., Hanyu da zidian 漢語大字典 (Wuhan: Hubei cishu; Chengdu: Sichuan cishu, 1986–1990), 2546–48.

16 This “document” (shu 書) is referred to as “earlier document” (qianshu 前書) in the later part of section 1.

17 An ordinance (ling 令) was one of the major forms of Qin laws. See Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society, 72–74.

18 The character composed of xiao 肖 and li 力 can be read as xue 削 (to scrape off). The similar term xue gong 削工 can be seen in the Han wooden slips discovered from Juyan. Wang Guihai 汪桂海 suggests that it refers to those craftsmen whose job was to produce bamboo and wooden slips by using a writing knife (shu dao 書刀). See Wang Guihai, “Handai guanfu jiandu de jiagong, gongying” 漢代官府簡牘的加工、供應, Jianbo yanjiu 2009 簡帛研究2009 (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue, 2010), 144–45.

19 For field laborers (tian tu 田徒), see also Chen Songchang 陳松長, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (liu) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡 (陸) (Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2020), 171, slips 1870-1+1870-2 and 1612.

20 I follow Chen Wei and his research team who read fù yu zhou 傅于奏 as fū yu zhou 敷于奏 (to state in the submitted report). See Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (diyi juan), 217, n. 8. Yet, it is also possible to read it as fù yu zhou 附于奏 (to attach to the submitted report). For the various readings of fu 傅, see Hanyu da zidian, 201.

21 It is also possible that the word sui 歲 means “annual” and that suitain 歲田 refers to a kind of annual agricultural task that Bailiff of Convict Labor Yan and the others were ordered to perform. Nevertheless, this is possibly the “other crime” (tazui 它罪) committed by Yan and the others as mentioned earlier in the document. An alternative interpretation is to read wangsui 往歲 as a compound noun, referring to the “previous year.” But it would be hard to explain why it was relevant to the present case and Yan and the others matched the punishment for it.

22 There should be a missing character deng 等 after the character yan 厭. Yan was not the only official charged with dereliction of duty. Throughout the document, Yan was usually suffixed with the character deng 等. See also my discussion in the later sections.

23 The “earlier document” (qianshu 前書) refers to the one that had been submitted by the Assistant Magistrate of Qianling for proposing appropriate punishment for Bailiff of Convict Labor Yan and the others.

24 Note that an entry of the “Statutes on the Forwarding of Documents” (xingshu lü 行書律) in the Shuihudi materials states that “for those [documents] which should have arrived but have not, pursue them” 宜到不來者，追之. See Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu 睡虎地秦墓竹簡整理小組, Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian 睡虎地秦墓竹簡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1990), 61. A statute of the similar content also appears in the Qin legal documents held by the Yuelu Academy. See Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (si) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡 (肆) (Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2015), 142, slip 1271. For a recent study on this issue, see Ziyin, Liu 劉自隱, “Liye Qin jian zhong de zhuishu xianxiang: Cong Shuihudi Qin jian yize xingshu lü shuoqi” 里耶秦簡中的追書現象──從睡虎地秦簡一則行書律說起, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 16 (2017), 147–64Google Scholar.

25 The record shows that Yuanyang could have been the location of the office (zhisuo 治所) of Dongting Commandery where Yi was acting the position of Governor by the county’s seal. You Yi-Fei 游逸飛 raises another possibility, suggesting that Yuanyang could be the county where the Governor was visiting during his inspection. See his “Liye Qin jian suojian de Dongting jun: Zhanguo Qin Han junxian zhi ge’an yanjiu zhi yi” 里耶秦簡所見的洞庭郡：戰國秦漢郡縣制個案研究之一, Journal of Chinese Studies 61 (2015), 33.

26 There should be a missing character jia 叚 between the characters Dongting 洞庭 and yi 繹. Yi was the Acting Governor of Dongting on August 3 and September 2 in 213 bce. It seems unlikely that he was promoted to the position of Governor of Dongting on August 20 or earlier, and then suddenly demoted to the original position in less than a month. Besides, although Yi’s title on August 20 was Governor of Dongting, he was still using the seal of Yuanyang for acting the position. He should have used the seal of Dongting if he had been promoted to Governor of Dongting. See also You, “Liye Qin jian suojian de Dongting jun,” 32, n. 22.

27 The delay of responses (bao 報) appears to be quite common in the Liye materials. See Liu, “Liye Qin jian zhong de zhuishu xianxiang,” 152–61; Fung, Tong Chun 唐俊峰, “Qin dai Qianling xian xingzheng xinxi chuandi xiaolü chutan” 秦代遷陵縣行政信息傳遞效率初探, Jianbo 16 (2018), 191–230Google Scholar.

28 For a synthesis on this issue, see Shan Yuchen 單育辰, “Liye Qin gongwen liuzhuan yanjiu” 里耶秦公文流轉研究, Jianbo 9 (2014), 199–209.

29 Chen, “Liye Qin jian 8-1523 bianlian he 5-1 judou wenti.”

30 For a detailed examination on the material features of this document, see Hsing I-tien 邢義田, “Handai jiandu de tiji, zhongliang he shiyong: Yi Zhongyanyuan shiyusuo cang Juyan Han jian wei li” 漢代簡牘的體積、重量和使用：以中研院史語所藏居延漢簡為例, in his Di bu ai bao: Han dai jiandu 地不愛寶：漢代簡牘 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2010), 8–9. New evidence from the Yuelu Academy’s collection suggests that the maximum number of slips in a multi-slip document is around one hundred. See Staack, “Single- and Multi-Piece Manuscripts,” 23–26.

31 Sumiya, “Riya Shin kan niokeru tandokukan nitsuite,” 126.

32 The phrase X shou on the notched wooden tallies (quan 券) does not follow this rule. Each tally was supposed to be split into two matching pieces and therefore the inscription would only appear on one side. See Zhang Chunlong, Ohkawa Toshitaka 大川俊隆, and Momiyama Akira 籾山明, “Liye Qin jian kechi jian yanjiu: jianlun Yuelu Qin jian shu zhong de wei jiedu jian” 里耶秦簡刻齒簡研究──兼論嶽麓秦簡《數》中的未解讀簡, Wenwu 2015.3, 53–69, 96; Tsang Wing Ma, “Scribes, Assistants, and the Materiality of Administrative Documents in Qin-Early Han China: Excavated Evidence from Liye, Shuihudi, and Zhangjiashan,” T’oung Pao 103.4–5 (2017), 325–27.

33 For the meaning of the word shou, see Ma, “Scribes, Assistants, and the Materiality of Administrative Documents,” 322–29.

34 He might be copying from a lexical list in which the graphs are organized in sequence based on some principles such as meaning, sound, or shape. For a discussion of lexical lists from a comparative perspective, see Haicheng, Wang, Writing and the Ancient State: Early China in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 280–86Google Scholar.

35 The apprentice could have copied the phrase from a document that was handled by Lü.

36 For model forms, see Hsing I-tien, “Cong jiandu kan Han dai de xingzheng wenshu fanben: ‘shi’” 從簡牘看漢代的行政文書範本──「式」, in his Zhiguo anbang: fazhi, xingzheng yu junshi 治國安邦：法制、行政與軍事 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2011), 450–72; Barbieri-Low, Anthony J., “Model Legal and Administrative Forms from the Qin, Han, and Tang and Their Role in the Facilitation of Bureaucracy and Literacy,” Oriens Extremus 50 (2011), 125–56Google Scholar.

37 Here the sloping line was used to separate the phrase from the notice. For more on the uses of this mark, see Li and Liu, Jiandu wenshu xue, 69–73.

38 One can also argue that Mao might have originally copied the first three sections from a self-contained single-slip manuscript and the format of the present multi-slip manuscript was actually an imitation of the format of single-slip manuscript.

39 For an annotated transcription of these twelve slips, see Ma Yi 馬怡, “Liye Qin jian xuanjiao” 里耶秦簡選校, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan lishi yanjiusuo xuekan 4 (2007), 62–80. Charles Sanft terms these documents as “debt reckoning.” See his “Population Records from Liye: Ideology in Practice,” in Ideology of Power and Power of Ideology in Early China, ed. Yuri Pines, Paul R. Goldin, and Martin Kern (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 260–66.

40 Cangwu Commandery had already been established for nine years when the document was sent in 213 bce, which means that it was established in 222 bce, the same year as Qianling County.

41 Shi ji, 6.234.

42 Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (diyi juan), 5; Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (dier juan), 3–4. There is no record concerning Dongting and Cangwu as Qin commanderies in transmitted texts. The earliest record about Cangwu as a commandery is from the “Treatise of Geography” (Dili zhi 地理志) of the Han shu 漢書, in which it is noted that Cangwu became a commandery in the sixth year of Yuanding 元鼎 (111 bce) in the reign of Emperor Wu 武. See Han shu (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962), 28b.1629. For an inference on the territory of these two commanderies, see Chen Wei, “Qin Cangwu, Dongting er jun chulun” 秦蒼梧、洞庭二郡芻論, Lishi yanjiu 5 (2003), 168–72. As for the record of Cangwu xian 蒼梧縣 in a Qin legal case of the Zouyan shu 奏讞書 from the Zhangjiashan Han tomb, Chen Wei reads it as “the counties of Cangwu [Commandery].” See ibid., 169–70.

43 I suspect that during the early phase of Qin’s unification, the local governments of surplus laborers-servants were required to send their laborers to those with insufficient laborers to assist in agricultural production. In fact, Qianling County had owned a certain number of laborers who were originally from other commanderies. Slip 8-136+8-144 shows that a bondservant in Qianling County was originally from Xunyang 旬陽 County of Hanzhong 漢中 Commandery. See also You, “Liye Qin jian suojian de Dongting jun,” 64. The newly published Yuelu Qin legal manuscripts attest that the central government would send convicts to Dongting and Cangwu Commanderies and the governors were requested to settle these convicts in an underpopulated or undercultivated area to achieve the balance of human and land resources. See Chen Songchang 陳松長, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡 (伍) (Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2017), 44, slips 0921 and 0898.

44 These terms frequently show up in the Qin legal documents held by the Yuelu Academy. See Zhenbo, Yu 于振波, “Qin lüling zhong ‘xin qianshou’ yu ‘xindi li’” 秦律令中「新黔首」與「新地吏」, Zhongguoshi yanjiu 3 (2009), 69–78Google Scholar. The term “new lands’ officials” also appears in slip 8-1516 from the Liye archive. Some of these officials may have been demoted or transferred from Qin’s “original lands” (gudi 故地). See Wei, Zheng 鄭威, “Liye Qin jiandu suo jian Ba Shu shidi santi” 里耶秦簡牘所見巴蜀史地三題, Sichuan shifan daxue xuebao 12 (2015), 148–49Google Scholar. See also Zhang Menghan 張夢晗, “‘Xindi li’ yu ‘wei li zhi dao’: yi chutu Qin jian wei zhongxin de kaocha” 「新地吏」與「為吏之道」──以出土秦簡為中心的考察, Zhongguo shi yanjiu 3 (2017), 61–70.

45 For slips [16-5] and [16-6], see Ma, “Liye Qin jian xuanjiao,” 143 and 149.

46 For the relationship of these three slips, see Tsang Wing Ma 馬增榮, “Qin dai jiandu wenshuxue de ge’an yanjiu: Liye Qin jian 9-2283, [16-5] he [16-6] sandu de wuzhi xingtai, wenshu goucheng he chuandi fangshi” 秦代簡牘文書學的個案研究──里耶秦簡9-2283、[16-5]和[16-6]三牘的物質形態、文書構成和傳遞方式, Bulletin of Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 91.3 (2020), 349–418.

47 Governor Li gave his instruction on March 30, only four days after the vernal equinox (chunfen 春分). It was right in the middle of a peak season in agricultural production. See Xu, Xi Zhou (gonghe) zhi Xi Han lipu, 1243. More legal regulations on mobilizing commoners during the season of agricultural production can be seen in the Yuelu Academy’s collection. See Songchang, Chen, “Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian zhong de yaolü lishuo” 嶽麓書院藏秦簡中的徭律例說, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 11 (2012), 162–66Google Scholar; Yang, Ou 歐揚, “Yuelu Qin jian ‘wuduo tianshi ling’ tanxi” 嶽麓秦簡「毋奪田時令」探析, Hunan daxue xuebao 29.3 (2015), 25–30Google Scholar.

48 This traditional view is also one of the most influential explanations for the fall of Qin. Scholars have now started to question this stereotypical explanation. See, for example, Jack L. Dull, “Anti-Qin Rebels: No Peasant Leaders Here,” Modern China 9.3 (1983), 285–318; Shelach, Gideon, “Collapse or Transformation? Anthropological and Archaeological Perspective on the Fall of Qin,” in Birth of an Empire: The State of Qin Revisited, ed. Pines, Yuri et al. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014), 116–17Google Scholar.

49 See also slip 8-1622+8-1699 in which agricultural production is referred to as dashi 大事 (great matter).

50 Barbieri-Low, Anthony J., Artisans in Early Imperial China (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007), 26Google Scholar.

51 Wang Yanhui 王彥輝 suggests that the Office of the Agricultural Fields was a metropolitan office (duguan 都官), which is proved untenable by Chen Wei. Yet they both agree that along with the Office of the Agricultural Fields, there was another agency named tian 田 or tianbu 田部, which was also in charge of the matters of agricultural fields in Qianling County. The relationship of these agencies to the Office of the Agricultural Fields in Qianling remains uncertain from the limited materials published so far. See Wang Yanhui, “Liye Qin jian (yi) suo jian Qin dai xian xiang jigou shezhi wenti lice”《里耶秦簡》（壹）所見秦代縣鄉機構設置問題蠡測, Gudai Wenming 6.4 (2012.10), 50–53; Chen Wei, “Liye Qin jian suo jian de ‘tian’ yu ‘tianguan’” 里耶秦簡所見的「田」與「田官」, Zhongguo dianji yu wenhua 87 (2013), 145–46.

52 Slip 8-63 mentions the official title zuo gongtian 左公田. Robin D. S. Yates suspects that these gongtian might have been rented out (jia 假) to ordinary commoners for farming. See his “Bureaucratic Organization of the Qin County of Qianling in the Light of the Newly Published Liye Qin jian (yi) and Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (diyi juan),” presented at the Fourth International Conference on Sinology, Institute for History and Philology, Academia Sinica June 20–22, 2012, 26. Note that the term you gongtian 右公田, which appears to be a parallel to the zuo gongtian in the Liye materials, is seen in a Qin seal. See Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭 “Cong chutu wenzi ziliao kan Qin he Xi Han shidai guanyou nongtian de jingying” 從出土文字資料看秦和西漢時代官有農田的經營, in Zhongguo kaoguxue yu lishixue zhi zhenghe yanjiu 中國考古學與歷史學之整合研究, ed. Zang Zhenhua 臧振華 (Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1997), 431. Recently, Li Mian 李勉 and Jin Wen 晉文 propose that the shift from the use of gongtian to guantian was part of the reform of terminologies implemented after the Qin unification. See their “Liye Qin jian zhong de ‘tianguan’ yu ‘gongtain’” 里耶秦簡中的「田官」與「公田」, Jianbo yanjiu er ling yi liu 簡帛研究二○一六 (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue, 2016), 126.

53 For a study of these documents, see Aoki Shunsuke 青木俊介, “Riya Shin kan no ‘zoku shoku bunsho’ ni tsuite” 里耶秦簡の「続食文書」について, Meidai Ajia shi ronshū 明大アジア史論集18 (2014), 25–27.

54 See Wang, “Liye Qin jian (yi) suo jian Qin dai xian xiang jigou shezhi wenti lice,” 51; Chen, “Liye Qin jian suo jian de ‘tian’ yu ‘tianguan’,” 146. Yates, “Bureaucratic Organization of the Qin County of Qianling,” 26, also argues that some of the fields in Qianling were used to supply the needs of the garrison conscripts.

55 Translation after Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society, 223, n. 23, with modifications.

56 Translation after Yates, “Bureaucratic Organization of the Qin County of Qianling,” 21–22, with modifications.

57 Han shu, 19a.730.

58 Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, 49–54. See also A. F. P. Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law: An Annotated Translation of the Ch’in Legal and Administrative Rules of the 3rd Century B.C., Discovered in Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 66–76. For parallel passages of the “Statutes on Convict Labor” in the Yuelu Academy collection, see Zhou Haifeng 周海鋒, “Cong Yuelu shuyuan cang sikong lü kan Qin lü wenben de bianzuan yu liubian qingkuang” 從嶽麓書院藏《司空律》看秦律文本的編纂與流變情況, Chutu wenxian 10 (2017), 149–55.

59 For studies on sikong during the Qin and Han periods, see Miyake Kiyoshi 宮宅潔, Chūgoku kodai keiseishi no kenkyū 中国古代刑制史の研究 (Kyoto: Kyōto Daigaku, 2011), chap. 5; Song Jie 宋杰, “Qin Han guojia tongzhi jigou zhong de ‘sikong’” 秦漢國家統治機構中的「司空」, Lishi yanjiu 2011.4, 15–34; Zou Shujie 鄒水杰, “Ye lun Liye Qin jian zhi ‘sikong’” 也論里耶秦簡之「司空」, Nandu xuetan 34.5 (2014), 1–7.

60 Slip [10-15] mentions the term sikong youzhi chengche 司空有秩乘車. While youzhi represents an official’s rank, chengche indicates that the official is allowed to ride in carriages. Neither term is part of an official title. See Liye Qin jian bowuguan 里耶秦簡博物館, et al., eds., Liye Qin jian bowuguan cang Qin jian 里耶秦簡博物館藏秦簡 (Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2016), 196.

61 Nakayama Shigeru, “Shin Kan jidai no ‘kan’ to ‘sō’: ken no bukyoku soshiki” 秦漢時代の「官」と「曹」—県の部局組織—, Tōyō gakuhō 東洋学報 82.4 (2001), 35–65. See also Zou, “Ye lun Liye Qin jian zhi ‘sikong,’” 1–7.

62 For example, Se 色 had been reappointed to the position of Bailiff of Convict Labor three times (see Appendix).

63 Note that Zhang was also held liable for another crime in 219 bce, but the punishment for his crime is not clear. See Liye Qin jian bowuguan cang Qin jian, 164, slip [7-304].

64 For this point, see also Ye Shan 葉山 (Robin D. S. Yates), “Qianling xian dang’ an zhong Qin fa de zhengjiu: chubu de yanjiu” 遷陵縣檔案中秦法的證據──初步的研究, trans. Hu Chuan-an 胡川安, Jianbo 10 (2015), 140.

65 Li Xueqin, “Chudu Liye Qin jian” 初讀里耶秦簡, Wenwu 1 (2003), 78.

66 See, for example, Yates, “The Changing Status of Slaves in the Qin-Han Transition,” in Birth of an Empire, 223.

67 Li Li, “Lichenqie” shenfen zai yanjiu 「隸臣妾」身份再研究 (Beijing: Zhongguo fazhi, 2007), 681–85. For a comprehensive review on the scholarship of lichenqie in the past few decades, see ibid., 134–220.

68 See, for example, Li, Li, “Lun ‘tuli’ de shenfen: Cong xin chutu Liye Qin jian rushou” 論「徒隸」的身份──從新出土里耶秦簡入手, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 8 (2007), 33–42Google Scholar; Jia Liying 賈麗英, “Liye Qin jiandu suo jian ‘tuli’ shenfen ji jianguan guanshu” 里耶秦簡牘所見「徒隸」身份及監管官署, Jianbo yanjiu er ling yi san 簡帛研究二○一三 (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue, 2014), 68–81; Shen Gang 沈剛, “Liye Qin jian (yi) suo jian zuotu guanli wenti tantao”《里耶秦簡》（壹）所見作徒管理問題探討, Shixue yuekan 2 (2015), 22–29.

69 Translation after Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society, 73, n. 16. See also 8-664+8-1053+8-2167: “On the first day of the month report to the office of Commandery Governor the number of laborer-servants that have been bought” 以朔日上所買徒隸數守府.

70 Li Xueqian suggests that a legal model (shi) of interrogation titled “Denouncing a Slave” (Gaochen 告臣) in the Shuihudi Qin documents can be taken as an example of purchasing convicts. Yet, Li Li disagrees. The slave was made a wall-builder because of his violation of Qin laws. Since the hard-labor sentence had to be executed in government facilities, the money given to the master of the slave was to redeem his loss of property. See Li Xueqin, “Chudu Liye Qin jian,” 78; Li Li, “Lun ‘tuli’ de shenfen,” 34. For a general description of the hard-labor punishment during the Qin and Han periods, see Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society, 193–99.

71 New evidence from the Yuelu Academy’s collection suggests that the duties of Censor for Managing Captives in Qin labor management might have been shared with a type of officials called “Law Enforcer” (zhifa 執灋). See Chen Songchang, “Yuelu Qin jian zhong de jige guanming kaolüe” 嶽麓秦簡中的幾個官名考略, Hunan daxue xuebao 29.3 (2015.5), 8–9; Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (liu), 171, slips 1612 and 1611. See also Fuminori, Tsuchiguchi 土口史記, “Yuelu Qin jian ‘Zhifa’ kao” 嶽麓秦簡「執法」考, trans. He Dong 何東, Falüshi yiping 6 (2018), 50–71Google Scholar.

72 Translation after Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law, 117. In addition, slip 8-1677 records that a person was assigned the duty of accompanying Assistant Dai to submit an “Evaluation of Captives” to Xinwulin County 一人與佐帶上虜課新武陵, which shows that Qianling County also owned a certain number of captives. As Chen Wei and his research team suggest, Xinwulin could have been the location of the office (zhisuo 治所) of Dongting Commandery. See Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (diyi juan), 190–91, slip 8-649, n. 3. The office of Dongting Commandery appears to have moved several times during the Qin. See You, “Liye Qin jian suojian de Dongting jun,” 32–33.

73 This type of account book is also mentioned in two legal cases in the Zouyan shu. See Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society, 1245–55.

74 Zhenhuan, Gao 高震寰, “Cong Liye Qin jian (yi) ‘zuo tu bu’ guankui Qin dai xingtu zhidu” 從《里耶秦簡 (壹)》「作徒簿」管窺秦代刑徒制度, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 12 (2014), 133–40Google Scholar; Jia, “Liye Qin jiandu suo jian ‘tuli’ shenfen ji jianguan guanshu,” 73–81; Shen, “Liye Qin jian (yi) suo jian zuotu guanli wenti tantao,” 25–27; Maxim Korolkov, “Convict Labor in the Qin Empire: A Preliminary Study of the ‘Registers of Convict Laborers’ from Liye,” in Jianbo wenxian yu gudaishi: Di er jie chutu wenxian qingnian xuezhe guoji luntan lunwenji 簡帛文獻與古代史：第二届出土文獻青年學者國際論壇論文集, ed. Fudan daxue lishixuexi 復旦大學歷史學系 et al. (Shanghai: Zongxi, 2015), 132–56.

75 Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 湖南省文物考古研究所, “Longshan Liye Qin jian zhi ‘tubu’” 龍山里耶秦簡之「徒簿」, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 12 (2013), 101–31.

76 Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (dier juan), 460, slip 9-2289, n. 26, suggests that the two untranscribed characters should be baican 白粲 (sifters of white grain).

77 Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (dier juan), 460, slip 9-2289, n. 27, suggests that the two untranscribed characters should be chong wu 舂五. The whole sentence should be read as “grain-pounders: 53 persons.”

78 Liye Qin jian bowuguan cang Qin jian, 197–98.

79 See Tong Chun Fung, “Liye Qin jian suo shi Qin dai de ‘jianhu’ yu ‘jihu’: jian lun Qin dai Qianling xian de hushu” 里耶秦簡所示秦代的「見戶」與「積戶」——兼論秦代遷陵縣的戶數, Jianbo wang (www.bsm.org.cn/show_article.php?id=1987), accessed on February 2, 2018; Wang Wei 王偉 and Sun Zhaohua 孫兆華, “‘Jihu’ yu ‘jianhu’: Liye Qin jian suo jian Qianling bianhu shuliang” 「積戶」與「見戶」：里耶秦簡所見遷陵編戶數量, Sichuan wenwu 2 (2014), 64; Naomi Suzuki 鈴木直美, “Riya Shin kan ni mieru ‘mi to’ to ‘seki to’: Shin dai Sen-ryō kenka ni okeru kosū no tegakari to shite” 里耶秦簡にみえる「見戸」と「積戸」 ─秦代遷陵県下における戸数の手がかりとして─, Meidai Ajia shi ronshu 明大アジア史論集 18 (March 2014), 1–13; Gao Zhenhuan, Cong laodongli yunyong jiaodu kan Qin Han xingtu guanli zhidu de fazhan 從勞動力運用角度看秦漢刑徒管理制度的發展 (Ph.D. dissertation, National Taiwan University, 2017), 78–79.

80 The tasks performed by the laborers in the Office of Convict Labor were more focused on collecting and manufacturing raw materials and repairing government properties, which are considered harsher than those in the Office of the Granaries. See Gao, Cong laodongli yunyong jiaodu kan Qin Han xingtu guanli zhidu de fazhan, 67.

81 It is evident in a Shuihudi Qin statute that bondservants who were engaged in agricultural production (lichen tianzhe 隸臣田者) were allowed to receive grain ration from the government. See Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, 32.

82 See Liye Qin jian bowuguan cang Qin jian, 198. See also Li and Jin, “Liye Qin jian zhong de ‘tianguan’ yu ‘gongtain’,” 128.

83 As stated in the “Statutes on the Granaries” (cang lü 倉律) in the Yuelu Academy’s collection, only the bondservants were allowed to be servants and cooks for the officials. This corresponds to the record in slip [10-1170] in which only the bondservants were assigned to the task of being cooks for the officials. See Liye Qin jian bowuguan cang Qin jian, 197.

84 Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, 46.

85 Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, 46.

86 I follow Chen Wei and his team who gloss the term dinglin 丁粼 as dingling 丁齡. See Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (diyi juan), 342.

87 The same order is also quoted in slip 9-699+9-902 in which the character ling 令 is written as shu 書, suggesting that this was not an ordinance but just an order from the Chief Prosecutor.

88 For a discussion of different forms of resistance that the state power might have encountered during the Qin and Han periods, see Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society, 216–19.

89 However, the famous story about Chen Sheng’s 陳勝 rebellion during the late Qin period reminds us that the excessive reliance on such a system may have finally led to the collapse of the Qin Empire. See Shi ji 48.1949–50.

90 The tenth month was the first month of each year during the Qin and early Han periods. Note that this table does not convert all the months from Chinese lunar to Western calendars. For the conversions, see Xu, Xi Zhou (gonghe) zhi Xi Han lipu, 1241–66.

91 For the title shou sefu 守嗇夫 (Probationary Bailiff), see Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, 79, n. 3.

92 See Liye Qin jian bowuguan cang Qin jian, 164.

93 See Liye Qin jian bowuguan cang Qin jian, 105.

94 The latter ninth month was an intercalary month (runyue 閏月) in the Qin calendar.

95 There could be a missing character shou 守 after the title sikong 司空. It is unlikely that Zi had been suddenly demoted to Probationary Bailiff of Convict Labor in one month.

96 The year on this slip is not clear. Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (dier juan), 210, slip 9-816, n. 1, suggests that it was in the thirty-third year of the First Emperor.