Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:55:45.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yokes of Gold and Threads of Silk: Sino-Tibetan competition for authority in early twentieth century Kham*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2015

SCOTT RELYEA Open the ORCID record for SCOTT RELYEA [Opens in a new window]
SCOTT RELYEA*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Hamline University, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Beginning in the early eighteenth century, a bifurcated structure of authority in the Kham region of ethnographic Tibet frustrated attempts by both the Lhasa and Beijing governments to assert their unquestioned control over a myriad polities in the borderlands between Sichuan and Tibet. A tenuous accommodation of this structure persisted from the early eighteenth century until the first two decades of the twentieth century when powerful globalizing norms—territoriality and sovereignty—transformed both the understanding and expectations of territorial rule held by Qing and, later, Republican Chinese officials. Absolutist conceptions of these norms prompted an ambitious endeavour to shatter the bifurcated structure and undermine the Dalai Lama's spiritual influence on Kham society. Infrontier imperialism is used to analyse the incomplete implementation of resulting acculturative and incorporative policies, inflected by these two norms, which challenged the monasteries’ indirect influence on the lay rulers of Kham, initiating a struggle for authority that persists to this day.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 963 - 1009
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

*

I am grateful to the insightful comments and suggestions of participants in a round table discussion at the University of California, Los Angeles, where this article was first presented, and those of the anonymous reviewers for Modern Asian Studies.

References

1 In this article, ethnographic Tibet encompasses both the Tibet Autonomous Region and the predominately Tibetan areas of Sichuan, Yunnan, Qinghai, and Gansu provinces. In some works, ‘ethnographic Tibet’ is used to refer exclusively to the latter regions outside the Tibet Autonomous Region, to distinguish it from the former, which is then called ‘political Tibet’. For example, see Goldstein, Melvyn C., The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, Berkeley, 1999), p. xiGoogle Scholar.

2 For the purposes of this article, the ‘borderland’ refers to a contested space, a region wherein multiple cultures and peoples interact, territorially divided between two neighbouring polities, and frequently claimed or desired in toto by both. Influenced by North American notions, ‘frontier’ refers to that part of the borderland region situated wholly within the boundary of a given polity. Occasionally, frontier is also used in its more European sense in reference to a polity's boundary itself. In Chinese, the compound bianjiang (邊疆) can encompass both meanings, that of a boundary and that of a region. See Perdue, Peter C., ‘Empire and Nation in Comparative Perspective: Frontier Administration in Eighteenth-Century China’, Journal of Early Modern History 5, 4 (2001), pp. 282–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adelman, Jeremy and Aron, Stephen, ‘From Borderlands to Borders: Empires, Nation-States, and the Peoples in Between in North American History’, American Historical Review 104 (1999), pp. 814–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Haefeli, Evan, ‘A Note on the Use of North American Borderlands’, American Historical Review 105 (1999), pp. 1222–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 At an estimated 924,000 square kilometres, approximately the size of Nigeria, the Kham region today encompasses 50 counties in Sichuan, Yunnan, and Qinghai provinces and the Tibet Autonomous Region. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, however, the perceived territorial extent of Kham varied depending on whether defined by Tibetans, Khampas, or Chinese and their divergent goals for the region's administration—incorporation into the Lhasa or Chinese governments or left largely autonomous.

4 For a detailed analysis of early Qing actions in Kham, see Dai, Yingcong, The Sichuan Frontier and Tibet: Imperial Strategy in the Early Qing (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

5 Gaitu guiliu, which is translated here as bureaucratization, comprises the forcible removal of local indigenous rulers, their replacement by civil magistrates appointed by the central Qing government in Beijing, and the incorporation of the once loose-rein polity into the Chinese territorial bureaucracy.

6 Quoted in Ellingson, Ter, ‘Tibetan Monastic Constitutions: The Bca’-yig’ in Epstein, Lawrence J. and Sherburne, Richard (eds), Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie (Lewiston, New York: E. Mellen Press, 1990), p. 208Google Scholar.

7 For a succinct discussion of the linkage between spiritual and temporal authority in Tibet and Inner Asia, see Ruegg, David Sevport, ‘Introductory Remarks on the Spiritual and Temporal Orders’ in Cüppers, Christoph (ed.), The Relationship Between Religion and State (chos srid zung ‘brel) in Traditional Tibet (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004), pp. 9–13Google Scholar.

8 For details of the role of Güshri Khan in the Fifth Dalai Lama's rise to temporal and spiritual pre-eminence, see Shakabpa, Tsepon W. D., Tibet: A Political History (New York: Potala Publications, 1948), pp. 104–112Google Scholar. See also Campi, Alicia J., ‘Mongolia and Tibet in the Seventeenth Century: The Nature of a Special Relationship’ in Schwarz, Henry G. (ed.), Studies on Mongolia: Proceedings of the First North American Conference on Mongolian Studies (Bellingham, Washington: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University, 1979), pp. 81–84Google Scholar; and Kolmaš, Josef, Tibet and Imperial China: A Survey of Sino-Tibetan Relations up to the End of the Manchu Dynasty in 1912 (Canberra: Centre of Oriental Studies, Australian National University, 1967), pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

9 Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History, pp. 113 and 122.

10 Shiqu xianzhi (Shiqu County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 2000), p. 469; Ganze xianzhi (Ganze County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Sichuan Technology Press, 1990), pp. 7–8 (hereafter GZX); and FO 228/2749 D99, The National Archives, Kew Garden, United Kingdom (hereafter NA). The former source lists 1654 as the time when Ngawang Puntsok commenced monastery construction in the Hor states, but other accounts would seem to agree with the 1660s as a more accurate timeframe.

11 Samuel, Geoffrey, Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993), p. 69Google Scholar.

12 See bTsan-po, Bla-ma, The Geography of Tibet According to the ‘dZam-gling-rGyas-bShad, Turrell V. Wylie (trs.) (Roma: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1962), pp. 98–104Google Scholar.

13 See Qiming, Zhu and Jia, Li, Kangding xianzhi (Gazetteer of Kangding) (Chengdu: Ba Shu Shushe Chuban Fahang, 2000), p. 10Google Scholar, and Guoguang, He, Chuankang bianzheng ziliao jiyao (A Summary of Materials on Border Politics in Sichuan-Kham) (Chengdu: Cining Yulin Zhangdai Yin, 1940), p. 4aGoogle Scholar. The king of Chakla's full title was Mingzheng Changhexi Yutong Ningyuan junmin xuanweishisi (明正長河西魚通寧遠軍民宣慰使司), incorporating three of the territories under his jurisdiction: Changhexi 長河西, Yutong 魚通, and Ningyuan 寧遠, the rulers of each of which had held titles during the Ming dynasty and appealed for lesser titles from the Qing in 1643, which were finally granted in 1652.

14 See Dondrub, Derong Tsering, Zangzu tongshi: jixiang baoping (A General History of Tibet: The Auspicious Treasure Vase) (Lhasa: Tibet People's Publishing House, 2001), p. 311Google Scholar, cited in Yudru Tsomu, The Rise of Gönpo Namgyel in Kham: The Blind Warrior of Nyarong (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2014), p. 23.

15 See Kangding xianzhi (Kangding County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Sichuansheng cishu chubanshe, 1995), p. 10; Zuozhong, Lai, Qingwangchao zai Chuanbian Zangqu de tusi sezhi (The Tusi Setup by the Qing Dynasty in Kham in the Sichuan Borderlands) in Ganze zhou wenshi ziliao (Ganze Prefecture Literary History Information) 11 (1990), p. 100Google Scholar; and He, Chuankang bianzheng ziliao jiyao, p. 4a.

16 See Pengrui, Duan and Zengyun, Zhu, Yanjing xiangtuzhi (Yanjing County Gazetteer) (Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan, 1979 [1911]), p.1bGoogle Scholar; Guanxun, Chen (ed.), Xizang zhi (Annals of Xizang) (Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 1986 [1700s]), p. 125Google Scholar; and Edgar, J. H., The Marches of the Mantze (London: Morgan and Scott Ltd., 1908), p. 47Google Scholar.

17 See Mangkang xianzhi (Mangkang County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 2008), p. 97, 108–109, 360; Rockhill, William Woodville, Diary of a Journey Through Mongolia and Thibet in 1891 and 1892 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1894), p. 331Google Scholar; Coales, Oliver R., ‘Narrative of a Journey from Tachienlu to Ch’amdo and Back via Batang’ [1917] in McKay, Alex (ed.), The History of Tibet, Volume 3 (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), p. 229Google Scholar; and Samuel, Civilized Shamans, p. 76.

18 See Mayers, William Frederick, The Chinese Government: A Manual of Chinese Titles, Categorically Arranged and Explained (London: Kelly and Walsh, Limited, 1886), pp. 108–109Google Scholar; and Changdu diquzhi (Changdu District Gazetteer), Volume 2 (Beijing: Fangzhi chubanshe, 2005), pp. 1083, 1088–1089, 1093 (hereafter CD).

19 The following discussion of the galactic polity is predominately based on Tambiah, S. J., World Conqueror and World Renouncer: A Study of Buddhism and Polity in Thailand Against a Historical Background (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), especially Chapter 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Tambiah, World Conqueror, p. 113.

21 Ibid, p. 123.

22 Samuel also suggests that the policies of the Lhasa and Qing states towards the polities of Tibet resemble a galactic polity. See Samuel, Civilized Shamans, pp. 61–63.

23 When the Gurkhas in Nepal sent an army deep into Tibet in 1791, the king of Degé contributed 8,000 soldiers to the Qing force sent to push out the invaders. The dépa of Batang and each of the pönpo of the Hor States also contributed soldiers, while the trülku of Chamdo provided only ula (corvée labour) and provisions to the army. See Dege xianshi (Dege County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 1995), p. 13; Batang xianzhi (Batang County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1993), p. 10; Luhuo xianzhi (Luhuo County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 2000), p. 7; and CD, p.1084.

24 Litang xianzhi (Litang County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1996), pp. 511–513.

25 Grenard, Fernand, Tibet: The Country and its Inhabitants, A. Teixeira de Mattos (trs.), (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1904), p. 350Google Scholar. Grenard suggests that this political weakness of the Tibetan government explained what he perceived as the Qing government's total control of Tibet with a mere 21 officials and 1,500 soldiers.

26 Rockhill, W. Woodville, ‘An American in Tibet: Among the Mongols of the Azure Lake’, The Century 41, 3 (1891), p. 215Google Scholar.

27 Samuel, Civilized Shamans, pp. 62–63.

28 See GZX, p. 104; Xinlong xianzhi (Xinlong County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 1992), p. 7 (hereafter XLX); Tsomu, The Rise of Gönpo Namgyel, pp. 185–220; and Tsering, Tashi, ‘Nag-Ron Mgon-Po Rnam-Rgyal: A 19th Century Khams-Pa Warrior’ in Aziz, Barbara Nimri and Kapstein, Matthew (eds), Soundings in Tibetan Civilization (New Delhi: Manohar, 1985), pp. 209–211Google Scholar.

29 See Tsomu, The Rise of Gönpo Namgyel, pp. 222–224; GZX, p. 104; and XLX, p. 7.

30 See ‘Item No. 61, Dated the 15 day of the 11th month of Shing-lang (Water-bull) Year (1865)’, MSS EUR F80/177, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London, United Kingdom (hereafter OIOC).

31 See ibid. The king also accepted the Lhasa government's offer of a wife and acceded to their proposed date for visiting Lhasa.

32 Tsomu, The Rise of Gönpo Namgyel, p. 225. Among the principles of the 1866 document, item three ‘reminds the Dergé king and his ministers to bear in mind the kindness of the Lhasa government for liberating them from the tyrannical rule of Gonpo Namgyel. It demands the Dergé king strictly abide by the written pledge of loyalty to the Lhasa government and earnestly obey the Tibetan commissioner's orders.’

33 Report by Mr. A. Hosie, pp. 48–49 in FO 228/1549, NA.

34 See XLX, p. 8; Dege xianzhi (Dege County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 1995), p. 14; and Teichman, Eric, Travels of a Consular Officer in Eastern Tibet: Together with a History of the Relations between China, Tibet and India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000 [1922]), pp. 6–7Google Scholar.

35 Chuanlin, Lu, Chouzhan shugao (A Draft Record of the Plan for Zhandui) (Taipei: Wenhai chubanshe, 1968 [1900])Google Scholar.

36 Maier, Charles S., ‘Consigning the Twentieth Century to History: Alternative Narratives for the Modern Era’, American Historical Review 105, 3 (2000), p. 817CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 See Maier, ‘Consigning’; Maier, Charles S., ‘Transformations of Territoriality 1600–2000’ in Budde, Gunilla-Friederike, Conrad, Sebastian, and Janz, Oliver (eds), Transnationale Geschichte: Themen, Tendenzen und Theorien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2006), pp 32–55Google Scholar; and Kristof, Ladis K. D., ‘The Nature of Frontiers and Boundaries’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 49, 3 (1959), pp. 269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Maier defines territoriality as ‘the properties including power, provided by the control of bordered political space, which until recently at least created the framework for national and often ethnic identity’. On the Treaty of Nerchinsk, see Perdue, Peter C., China Marches West (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 2005), pp. 161–173Google Scholar.

38 See Osiander, Andreas, ‘Sovereignty International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth’, International Organization 55, 2 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the evolution of the concept of sovereignty, see Bartelson, Jens, A Genealogy of Sovereignty (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), especially Chapter 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 See Maier, ‘Transformations’, pp. 41–46.

40 Lu, Chouzhan shugao, p. 5.

41 For a discussion of the power of European concepts of inter-polity relations to overwhelm norms in other parts of the world, see Anand, Dibyesh, ‘A Story to be Told: IR, Postcolonialism, and the Tibetan (Trans)nationalism’ in Chowdhry, Geeta and Nair, Sheila (eds), Power, Postcolonialism, and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender, and Class (New York: Routledge, 2002), pp. 209–224Google Scholar.

42 Qichang, Chen, ‘Jing Zangwei yi gu Shujiang yi’ (‘An Opinion on Controlling Tibet as a Means to Strengthen Sichuan's Border’), Shuxue bao (Sichuan Journal) 10 (GX24.6.30 [1898]), p. 1aGoogle Scholar.

43 Neidi refers to the ‘inner lands’, sometimes called ‘China Proper’. Although there are numerous critiques in Chinese scholarship regarding the use of both terms in contraposition, especially to Manchuria, the implications of the term in the southwest are quite clear from its frequent usage in Chinese documents from both the Qing and early Republican eras to contrast Kham with the rest of Sichuan east of Dartsedo.

44 ‘Xizang yu Sichuan qiantu zhi guznxi’ (‘The Future of Relations between Tibet and Sichuan’), Sichuan (The Sze-chuen Magazine) 2 (15 January 1908), p. 45. This journal was published by Sichuanese students studying in Japan.

45 Ibid, p. 49.

46 Lu, Chouzhan shugao, p. 21a.

47 ‘Chuandian bianwushi yijun guanjin yao jushi lu chen ni ju zhangcheng zhe’ (‘The importance of Sichuan Yunnan Frontier matters. . .’) [1907] in Fengpei, Wu (ed.), Zhao Erfeng chuanbian zoudu (Zhao Erfeng Memorials from the Sichuan Borderlands) (Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1984), p. 48 (hereafter ZECZ)Google Scholar.

48 On the former, see ‘Liuxin bianwu’ (‘Be aware of frontier matters’), Sichuan guanbao (Sichuan Officials’ Gazette) 1 (XT1.1.30 [1909]), p. 1a (hereafter SG). Mentioning Christopher Columbus and government assistance provided to the explorers and settlers of other countries, whether venturing near or far, the author writes, ‘The many people of Sichuan and the multitudes of America are similar, and not wealthy. In earnestly considering how they might make a living, colonisation of the borderlands and reclaiming wastelands are the most important tasks.’

49 See Giersch, C. Patterson, Asian Borderlands: The Transformation of Qing China's Yunnan Frontier (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

50 See 清 (Qing) 7–74, Sichuan Provincial Archives, Chengdu, PRC (hereafter SA) and ‘Gaitu guiliu zhangcheng’ (‘Regulations for Bureaucratisation’) [1907] in ZECZ, pp. 190–197.

51 ‘Huiyi Zhengwuqu zouyi fu qian duxian Zhao bianwu dachen zou hui choubianwu kaiban zhangcheng pian’ (‘The Board of Government Affairs memorializes. . .’), SG 16 xia (XT3.4.10 [1911]), pp. 3a–4a. The previous memorial from Zhao in mid-1910 requested the central government appoint civil magistrates to Batang, Litang, and Chatreng.

52 See 清 (Qing) 7–74. In a section entitled ‘Elections’ (公舉), provision 5 states, ‘The commoners of each village will elect an honest and fair-minded person to serve as headman and oversee all affairs of the village.’

53 ‘Shouhui chunke gaori jiaohui tusi yinxin jingnei liangjiling yibing gaitu guiliu zhe’ (‘Take Back the Seals. . .’) [1909] in ZECZ, p. 304.

54 On the earlier proposal, see John E. Herman, ‘National Integration and Regional Hegemony: The Political and Cultural Dynamics of Qing State Expansion, 1650–1750’, PhD thesis, University of Washington, 1993, p. 142. Note that before Zhao's arrival, the largest monastery in Kham, Thubchen Choekhorling in Litang, housed some 5,000 monks.

55 Regulations for the new company are set out in a memorial to the Court from 1909. See 清 (Qing) 7–469, SA.

56 清 (Qing) 7–74, SA.

57 Jingxi, Zhang, Sanshinianlai zhi Xikang jiaoyu (Thirty Years of Education in Xikang) (Changsha: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1939), pp. 18–41Google Scholar.

58 Jinglin, Ma, Qingmo Chuanbian Zangqu gaitu guiliu kao (A Study of Gaitu Guiliu in the Tibetan Area of the Sichuan Border during the End of the Qing) (Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 2004), p. 175Google Scholar. Literally translated as ‘beyond the barrier’, guan wai (關外) in the book's title and the organization's name refers to Kham, west of Dartsedo.

59 No. 0848 (XT3.5.18 [1911]) in Qingmo Chuandianbianwu dangan shiliao (Studies of the Reports of Sichuan and Yunnan Border Affairs at the End of the Qing Empire) (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1989), pp. 963–964 (hereafter QCBDS). See also Ma, Qingmo Chuanbian Zangqu gaitu guiliu kao, pp. 175–176.

60 On these incentives and penalties, see Yimin, He, ‘20 shiji chunian chuanbian zangqu zhengzhi jingji wenhua gaige shulun’ (‘On the reformation of Politics, Economics and Culture in Tibetan Region of Western Sichuan at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century’), Xinan minzu xueyuan xuebao—zhexue shehui kexue ban (Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities. Philosophy and Social Sciences) 22, 6 (2001), p. 46Google Scholar; ‘Biandi jianwen lu’ (‘A record of what was seen and heard in the borderlands’), Shubao (Sichuan Report) 1, 12 (XT2.12 [1911]), pp. 3–4; and No. 0219 (GX34.10.14 [1908]) in QCBDS, p. 247.

61 ‘Eastern Tibet and the Marches’, FO 228/2573 D13, NA.

62 ‘Duban Chuandian bianwu dachen zou guanwai xuewuban youchengxiao qing bojing fei zhe’ (‘Zhao Erfeng requests funds. . .’), SG 26, xia (XT3.5.30 [1911]), pp. 2a–3b.

63 Negative 278 (XT3.3.28 [1911]) in J. C. Ogden's Photographs of Tibet, 1905–1928, Jacqueline Darakjy Collection. See also ‘Hua ji yifu’ (‘Even a foreign woman can be transformed’), SG.22 (XT2.8.30 [1910]), p. 1a.

64 See No. 0077 (GX32.7 [1906]) in QCBDS, pp. 91–92; and No. 0075 (GX32.6 [1906]) in QCBDS, pp. 90–91.

65 ‘Tibet: Mission of Enquiry into social and economical conditions’ (5 January 1911), FO 228/2573 D10, NA.

66 ‘Chengtu Press on affairs in Tibet and the Marches’ (19 March 1912), FO 228/2575 D51, NA.

67 ‘Yimin shibian’ (‘Filling the frontier with immigrants’), Sichuan shiye gongbao (Sichuan Industrial Magazine) 8 (20 August 1913), p. 1.

68 Shaoqian, Sun, ‘Pingxiang jishi’ (‘Chronicle of Pacifying the Countryside’) [1913] in Xinyu, Zhao, Heping, Qin and Quan, Wang (eds), Kangqu Zangzu shehui zhenxi ziliao jiyao (A Summary of Rare Materials on Tibetan Society in Khams) (Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 2006), p. 266Google Scholar.

69 See ‘Chuanxunan zifu jiaoyubu zhun Chuanbian zhenshoushi zifu Chuanbian yiwu jiaoyu banfa qingxing yi an’ (‘The Sichuan Regional Inspector's response. . .’), Sichuan xunbao (Sichuan Ten-day Report) 1(19) (11 October 1915), pp. 1–5.

70 In February 1912, the monks and commoners of Chatreng drove the Chinese official out of the district, drowned three recently appointed education officers, chopped off the hands of any Tibetan woman married to a Chinese man, and beheaded more than 100 settlers from neidi. See ‘Tibet and the Marches’ (30 March 1912), FO 228/2575 D61, NA; ‘Chinese tribulations in Tibet and the Marches’ (3 May 1912), FO 228/2576 D19, NA; ‘Progress of the Tibet Expedition’ (16 July 1912), FO 228/2577 D2, NA; ‘Litang shishou’ (‘The Fall of Litang’), Tongsu huabao (Popular Pictorial) 8 (6 July 1912); and ‘Batang dian’ (‘Batang Telegram’), Sichuan Zhengbao (Sichuan Government Report) 20 (30 July 1914), p. 110.

71 ‘Chuanxunan zifu jiaoyubu’.

72 ‘Journey to Ch’amdo’ (31 March 1917), FO 228/2749 D72, NA.

73 Guangxi, Yang, ‘Fenchuan gaisheng wenti’ (‘The Issue of Dividing Sichuan’), Shufeng bao 5, 5 (1 February 1914), pp. 2–3Google Scholar.

74 Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History, pp. 250–251.

75 See 民 (Min) 195 卷 (juan) 9 (16 June 1914), SA; and GZX, p. 716. The administrative region was initially called the Sichuan Frontier Special Administrative Region (川邊特別行政區).

76 See GZX, pp. 450, 716.

77 No. 0808 (XT3.3 [1911]) in QCBDS, pp. 920–921.

78 Songmu, Fu, Xikng jiansheng ji (Record of Province Building in Xikang) (Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue Chubanshe, 1988 [1912])Google Scholar.

79 ‘Waijiaobu dian zhu Ying Ri E sanguo waijiao daibiao shengming guanyu Mengzangshijian wuxiang’ (‘The Ministry of Foreign Affairs telegraphs. . .’), Dongfang zazhi (Eastern Miscellany) 9, 1 (2 October 1912), pp. 7–15.

80 On the McMahon Line between India and China, see, for example, Mehra, Parshotam, The McMahon Line and After: A Study of the Triangular Contest on India's North-eastern Frontier Between Britain, China and Tibet, 1904–47 (Delhi: MacMillan, 1974)Google Scholar.

81 ‘Item No. 61’ (1914), MSS EUR F80/177, OIOC. See also Anonymous, The Boundary Question Between China and Tibet: A Valuable Record of the Tripartite Conference between China, Britain, and Tibet held in India, 1913–1914 (Beijing: [s.n.], 1940), pp. 12–15, 21–22. Note that, unlike the Xikang Special Administrative Region, the parliamentary district did not extend as far west as Taizhao (Gyamda).

82 See ‘Dongmeng gaisheng zhi shouyi’ (‘The plan to convert eastern Mongolia into a province’), Shufengbao 4, 4 (15 January 1914), pp. 9–10; and ‘Neimenggu gaisheng zhi jinxing’ (‘The process of converting Inner Mongolia into provinces’), Shufengbao 3, 3 (15 December 1913), pp. 28–29. For a detailed examination of the origins of Suiyuan and its evolution from special administrative region in 1914 to the province's abolition in 1954, see Tighe, Justin, Constructing Suiyuan: The Politics of Northwestern Territory and Development in Early Twentieth-Century China (Leiden: Brill, 2005)Google Scholar.

83 ‘Item No. 61’ (1914), MSS EUR F80/177, OIOC. For more detail on the materials presented at the Conference by the Tibetans, see also Anonymous, The Boundary Question, pp. 23–87; and McGranahan, Carole, ‘Empire and the Status of Tibet: British, Chinese, and Tibetan negotiations, 1913–1934’ in McKay, (ed.), The History of Tibet, pp. 270–272Google Scholar. Other materials submitted by the Tibetans included rubbings from several ancient stele erected long before 1727 to mark either boundaries or prior agreements between Chinese empires and Lhasa authorities.

84 Seeking to lessen the importance of the 1727 stele for Tibetan conceptions of territoriality, the Tibetan plenipotentiary to the Simla Conference, Lönchen Shatra Paljor Dorje, suggested that the border stone may have never existed, or if it had, it ‘may simply be meant to mark the sphere of influence between the Szechuan province and the Lhassa Amban’. See ‘Item No. 61’ (1914), MSS EUR F80/177, OIOC.

85 Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History, p. 250.

86 ‘Present state of affairs in the Marches’ (2 November 1915), FO 228/2588 D79, NA.

87 Wilson, Ernest Henry, A Naturalist in Western China with Vasculum, Camera, and Gun, Volume 1 (New York: Doubleday, Page and Co., 1913), p. 211Google Scholar.

88 Teichman, Travels of a Consular Officer, p. 51.

89 See ‘Tibetan Frontier. Modern rifles in Tibetan hands’ (8 September 1917), FO 228/2749 D106, NA; and Baiyu xianzhi (Baiyu County Gazetteer) (Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 1996), p. 9. These were euphemistically called ‘sporting bullets’ in the despatch from Coales, who tacitly acknowledged that the Tibetans might have obtained a quantity of ‘dum dum’ bullets, banned for use in warfare under the Hague Convention of 1899, but suggested that these could not have been obtained either from or with the knowledge of the British government.

90 See Zang’an jilue (A Summary of Tibetan Records) (Beijing: Waijiaobu zhengwusi, 1919), pp. 26a–28b; ‘Tibet’, L/P+S/10/715 No. B300, OIOC; and William Moore Hardy, ‘Agreement for the restoration of peaceful relations and the delimitation of a provisional frontier between China and Tibet’, Tibet File Box 6, Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Nashville, Tennessee.

91 GZX, p. 10.