47 replies to this topic

[Iovah]

P.S. Although the Chinese population dramatically dropped during the Manchu invasion, it was by no means 76%. Where did you get that figure!?

I remember reading on the town Chaozhou (modern Chaobo) at that time, and they mention the Manchu raid, but Chaozhou, a medium sized town in Shandong, was almost entirely razed to the ground, but the population according to accurate statistical records of the time, only declined about 20%, still an atrociously high number that would have meant everyone having several direct family members dead scaring most for life and mostly the victims were adult males. This may be only one village, but I think if one were to look at statistics for all towns, they would find similar statistics within a range. It would be nearly impossible to decimate 76% a population of about 150 million at that time. That means 114 million Chinese were killed, and China's population would have dropped to 36 million. Then that 36 million repopulated back to 150 million by 1700, because before 1700 the Chinese population had returned to pre-Qing levels, so that means the population in 60 years went up 4 times, or assuming all 36 million of those people were of breeding age (which I doubt, probably less than half were), every couple would have to produce 8 to 9 children that survived to breeding age themselves. In modern China, the populations took 100 years to go up 4 times, and that's with longer lifespan and much lower infant mortality and birth related deaths, and a government that intensely encouraged it.

[ahxiang]

Much clearer! Thank you!

I despise using the term "inevitable" in any historical context. It implies fate, but I would agree that it was "highly probable." The sentitment among many of the elites in the 1900's to 1910's was that great change was afoot. The Qing establishment of provincial assemblies and the promise of a constitutional monarchy definately left people wondering about the future. And the Boxer rebellion and the cancellation of the Imperial exams were definately factors in its demise, but a better question is, how did it last 11 years after the Boxer rebellion and 6 years after the cancellation of the Imperial examination system? Why did Sun's revolution or other revolutionary groups fail to topple the Qing earlier? Other regimes could be toppled within a year of discontent, why not the Qing? It appears to me, that the average citizens fervor for revolution was quite ambivalent or luke warm.

When you word it "the bank deliberately stopped payment to force the ousting of the cabinet" I do recall that instance. I beleive it was in 1924, but I don't recall off the top of my head. I concentrated mainly on the Pre-1922 Washington Conference Activities. You apparently are aware of Koo's career, and I'm glad to know of someone else who did, but as I recall, and I'm confused, Koo's memoirs, the one wrote in the 70's while living in New York in English, only have 6 volumes. I've read the very originals his secretary wrote up on the type writter. Are you reading another version? Does he have a Chinese version or something? Because the original copy I read at the Columbia Library certainly didn't have 12 volumes. Just 6 books, 6 volumes.

As to Manchu slaughter of Chinese, there was a discussion at
http://www.chinahist...showtopic=13884

1080年（北宋元丰三年） 3330万人
1110年（北宋大观四年） 4673万人
1195-1223年（金章宗明昌六年---南宋嘉定十六年） 7681万人
*
*
*
1290年（元至元二十七年） 5883万人
1393年（明洪武二十六年） 6054万人
1403年（明永乐元年） 6659万人
1491年（明弘治四年） 5328万人
1578年（明万历六年） 6069万人
1651年（清顺治八年） 1063万人
1656年（顺治十三年） 1541万人

I derived the 76% by comparing the population of 51,655,459 at AD 1620 against 10,633,326 at AD 1651.

Quite some southern CHinese fled to SOutheast Asia. So, we could not say the Manchus killed all those unaccounted for.


About revolution and overthrow of a regime. In China's past, dynastic changes usually came with mutinies. Rarely rebellions could succeed. HUang Cao Rebellion of Tang Dynasty was a mutiny, for example, not a peasant rebellion. Li Zicheng rebellion of late Ming was a mutiny of "imperial mail route troops". Chinese communist rebellions of 1927 were all mutinies, including Mao's autumn harvest, Heh Long's August 1st Nanchang, Deng Xiaoping's Right River, Kuang Jixun's Hubei-Sichuan rebellion, and Liu Zhidan's Shenxi rebellion.

Lenin's revolution was funded by Germans and Japanese. Kosovo's independence, the most recent example, was the result of CIA support. You may want to read WALL STREET & BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION to know what the key to subversion and sabotage was.

I cannot imagine any rebellion that could succeed without adequate funding. Sun Yat-sen's revolution was supported by overseas Chinese, including the majority of martyrs who died in Canton just prior to the 1911 revolution. It was no surprise that Sun Yat-sen's revolution took so many years. The resources were limited. If you had Zhang Taiyan's book, then you could tell revolutionaries did not even have money to buy food, and on some occasions, resorted to borrowing money from Japanese women who worked in the overseas Chinese newspaper agency.

[Iovah]

As to Manchu slaughter of Chinese, there was a discussion at
http://www.chinahist...showtopic=13884

1080年（北宋元丰三年） 3330万人
1110年（北宋大观四年） 4673万人
1195-1223年（金章宗明昌六年---南宋嘉定十六年） 7681万人
*
*
*
1290年（元至元二十七年） 5883万人
1393年（明洪武二十六年） 6054万人
1403年（明永乐元年） 6659万人
1491年（明弘治四年） 5328万人
1578年（明万历六年） 6069万人
1651年（清顺治八年） 1063万人
1656年（顺治十三年） 1541万人

I derived the 76% by comparing the population of 51,655,459 at AD 1620 against 10,633,326 at AD 1651.

Quite some southern CHinese fled to SOutheast Asia. So, we could not say the Manchus killed all those unaccounted for.


About revolution and overthrow of a regime. In China's past, dynastic changes usually came with mutinies. Rarely rebellions could succeed. HUang Cao Rebellion of Tang Dynasty was a mutiny, for example, not a peasant rebellion. Li Zicheng rebellion of late Ming was a mutiny of "imperial mail route troops". Chinese communist rebellions of 1927 were all mutinies, including Mao's autumn harvest, Heh Long's August 1st Nanchang, Deng Xiaoping's Right River, Kuang Jixun's Hubei-Sichuan rebellion, and Liu Zhidan's Shenxi rebellion.

Lenin's revolution was funded by Germans and Japanese. Kosovo's independence, the most recent example, was the result of CIA support. You may want to read WALL STREET & BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION to know what the key to subversion and sabotage was.

I cannot imagine any rebellion that could succeed without adequate funding. Sun Yat-sen's revolution was supported by overseas Chinese, including the majority of martyrs who died in Canton just prior to the 1911 revolution. It was no surprise that Sun Yat-sen's revolution took so many years. The resources were limited. If you had Zhang Taiyan's book, then you could tell revolutionaries did not even have money to buy food, and on some occasions, resorted to borrowing money from Japanese women who worked in the overseas Chinese newspaper agency.

After reading the post about population decline, I agree with warhead. You're information is highly slective and based on what all historians, including Beida professors as I was there taking class, is highly flawed. You also make many assumptions that flaw your argument. I even beleive you're making much of this up. Even the statistics you showed are flawed because the population doubled in 5 years 1651年（清顺治八年） 1063万人 1656年（顺治十三年） 1541万人. That means all 10 million of them in 5 years birthed 5 million surviving children. I'm sure the difference, if it is from the official statistics, was due to more people being added to the tax registry, but it would be impossible for a country with a population of 10 or 15 million to jump to 300 million (aprox 1900's) in 250 years. Those census records only count tax payers by household, not everyone paid taxes. Also the definition of a household and the amonut of people in a household varried from time to time. Prof Yan Buke, a very well reputed professor of Tang history, specifically told me in class, "Never beleive ancient Chinese satistics. They always undercount or overcount." Even today, the Chinese gov. undercounts a portions of its pop.

What's the point about financing revolution and the Qing's longevity?

I'm finding you less and less scholarly basing your arguments on conjecture, assumptions and the manipulation of information. You don't make clear valid points and arguments with substantiated data. Just as you seemed to have never read Koo's memoirs, because there was not 12 volumes, nor did you point out the intentional mistake I made that anyone who read it would have noticed. So this is my last response. 不再费劲.

[ahxiang]

After reading the post about population decline, I agree with warhead. You're information is highly slective and based on what all historians, including Beida professors as I was there taking class, is highly flawed. You also make many assumptions that flaw your argument. I even beleive you're making much of this up. Even the statistics you showed are flawed because the population doubled in 5 years 1651年（清顺治八年） 1063万人 1656年（顺治十三年） 1541万人. That means all 10 million of them in 5 years birthed 5 million surviving children. I'm sure the difference, if it is from the official statistics, was due to more people being added to the tax registry, but it would be impossible for a country with a population of 10 or 15 million to jump to 300 million (aprox 1900's) in 250 years. Those census records only count tax payers by household, not everyone paid taxes. Also the definition of a household and the amonut of people in a household varried from time to time. Prof Yan Buke, a very well reputed professor of Tang history, specifically told me in class, "Never beleive ancient Chinese satistics. They always undercount or overcount." Even today, the Chinese gov. undercounts a portions of its pop.

What's the point about financing revolution and the Qing's longevity?

I'm finding you less and less scholarly basing your arguments on conjecture, assumptions and the manipulation of information. You don't make clear valid points and arguments with substantiated data. Just as you seemed to have never read Koo's memoirs, because there was not 12 volumes, nor did you point out the intentional mistake I made that anyone who read it would have noticed. So this is my last response. 不再费劲.

Instead of jumping your gun, you could have kindly reminded me to get the pages scanned. Since you claimed to have read all Koo's memoirs, then you should recognize the 8 pages linked here:

http://www.republica...o-pp288-289.jpg
http://www.republica...o-pp290-291.jpg
http://www.republica...o-pp292-293.jpg
http://www.republica...o-pp294-295.jpg

And, you claimed to have studied at Peking U. Then you should have known the first volume of Wellington Koo Memoirs was published in May 1983 by Social Sciences Academy. The last volume, #13, was out in 1994.

Note one thing about me picking on you for a post on this thread. It was your advocacy for Manchu-era "stability" and decry over "chaos" of Republican China which was a democracy no matter how flawed it was till Feng Yuxiang, in collusion with Russians and CCP, set the clock back by overthrowing the Cao Kun presidency and the Parliament.

I am not interested in arguing with you over things you could not comprehend. This reply was not destined for you alone, but for the general public.

My previous debate with Warhead in regards to Mongol and Manchu slaughters were probably similar to this discussion. What Warhead was arguing was that Mongols had conquered China because they got the Chinese peasant support, the same way as Chinese communist victory in the civil war of 1945-1950; that over-emphasis on 'minority' massacre against majority Chinese was kind of chauvinism; and that the AD 1276 data was a good number- which I disputed as a number on paper when Mongols sacked Hangzhou the capital and took over Southern Song dowager empress.

Your claim of some discrepancy in numbers from AD 1651, 10,63 million and AD 1656 15,41 million could be easily explained. Manchu conquest was still ongoing at the time. The increase of headcounts were the result of a continuous push towards southern China, during which process they killed lots of more Chinese but took in differentially more people than killed.

[wlee15]

Ahxiang your argument is flawed because the Censuses for the Qing only checks for men from the ages of 19-59 and does not record household size unlike the previous dynasties.

Kent G. Deng's analysis in his article "Unveiling China’s True Population Statistics for the Pre-Modern Era with Official Census Data" indicates that in 1655, the population was 38,559,811 and in 1620 is 51,655,459 a decline of 25%.

[Iovah]

wlee15 no point in talking to him when he's pulling things from nowhere.

And Koo's memoirs were published in 1981 at Columbia University, not in Peking University. There are only 4 books or microfilm rolls containing 6 volumes done entirely in English (as Koo had lived half his life in the U.S. and was quite eloquent in English, but he admittingly speaks not so great Chinese.) While I was at the library today, I talked to one of the librarian, she helped me find it, and I found that in 1983, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Contemporary Chinese History Research Center began translating his memoirs finishing in 1994. But it was a TRANSLATION. They arbitrarily divided is up into 13 even paged "volumes" However, the contents still mark the beginning and end of each volume in the original translation. Also the translation isn't so great from the little I read.

What the hell was the point of the thing about Feng Yuxiang? and How could the CCP help with the overthrow of Cao Kun when they had just been founded at the time.

[ahxiang]

Ahxiang your argument is flawed because the Censuses for the Qing only checks for men from the ages of 19-59 and does not record household size unlike the previous dynasties.

Kent G. Deng's analysis in his article "Unveiling China’s True Population Statistics for the Pre-Modern Era with Official Census Data" indicates that in 1655, the population was 38,559,811 and in 1620 is 51,655,459 a decline of 25%.

One person or two persons' reversing Chinese classics by claiming a different interpretation of ancient census did not validate that all the rest were wrong.

If you examine the population from 14th century to 20th century, you could tell there were two spikes, one in Qianlong period when poulation jumped by 5-6 folds to 143 million from 27.35 million, and the other period being communist China when population jumped to 1.5 billion today from 0.548 billion.

The qianlong jump could seem a mystery, but the data prior to that, from Ming Dynasty onward, was quite contiguous.

There is no basis to refute the fact that Manchu ruling was harsh, either you save the head or the hair.

1393年（明洪武二十六年 6054万人
1403年（明永乐元年） 6659万人
1491年（明弘治四年） 5328万人
1578年（明万历六年） 6069万人

1651年（清顺治八年） 1063万人
1656年（顺治十三年） 1541万人
1659年（顺治十六年） 1900万人
1684年（康熙二十三年） 2O34万人
1699年（康熙三十八年） 2041万人
1700年（康熙三十九年） 2041万人
1711年（康熙五十年） 2462万人
1719年（康熙五十八年） 2502万人
1724年（雍正二年） 2611万人
1726年（雍正四年） 2639万人
1734年（雍正十二年） 2735万人

1741年（乾隆六年） 14341万人
1742年（乾隆七年） 15980万人
1743年（乾隆八年） 16445万人
1746年（乾隆十一年） 17189万人
1751年（乾隆十六年） 18181万人
1757年（乾隆二十二年） 19034万人
1762年（乾隆二十七年） 20047万人
1768年（乾隆三十三年） 21083万人
1774年（乾隆三十九年） 22102万人
1775年（乾隆四十年） 26456万人
1777年（乾隆四十二年） 27086万人
1782年（乾隆四十七年） 28182万人
1786年（乾隆五十一年） 29110万人
1790年（乾隆五十五年） 30148万人
1793年（乾隆五十八年） 31049万人
1805年（嘉庆十年） 33218万人（福建、陕西求计在内）
1808年（嘉庆十三年） 35029万人
1822年（道光二年） 37245万人
1826年（道光六年） 38028万人
1829年（道光九年） 39050万人
1834年（道光十四年） 40100万人
1839年（道光十九年） 41085万人（湖南、福建、台湾末计在内）

1840年（道光二十年） 41281万人（湖南、福建米计在内）
1845年（道光二十五年） 42134万人
1851年（咸丰元年） 43216万人（湖南、福建、台湾末计在内）
1910年（宣统二年）十八省人口，民政部统计是33118万人，邮局调查是43842万人
1911年（宣统三年〕 37767万人（清朝最后一年）
1912年（民国元年） 35572万人

[ahxiang]

wlee15 no point in talking to him when he's pulling things from nowhere.

And Koo's memoirs were published in 1981 at Columbia University, not in Peking University. There are only 4 books or microfilm rolls containing 6 volumes done entirely in English (as Koo had lived half his life in the U.S. and was quite eloquent in English, but he admittingly speaks not so great Chinese.) While I was at the library today, I talked to one of the librarian, she helped me find it, and I found that in 1983, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Contemporary Chinese History Research Center began translating his memoirs finishing in 1994. But it was a TRANSLATION. They arbitrarily divided is up into 13 even paged "volumes" However, the contents still mark the beginning and end of each volume in the original translation. Also the translation isn't so great from the little I read.

What the hell was the point of the thing about Feng Yuxiang? and How could the CCP help with the overthrow of Cao Kun when they had just been founded at the time.

Suggest you go back to your library to re-read Wellington Koo for the chapter on the time-bomb that exploded and killed and wounded Wellington Koo's servants. The bomb was planted by two college students of Chinese communist background, with the motivation being to stop Wellington Koo from a stuboorn attitude on Chinese Eastern Railway and Outer Mongolia in negotiations with Kharakan.

Russians had their sinister agents working in China long before the founding of CCP. In 1918, Russians recruited overseas Chinese in Moscow for setting up a CCP. In 1919, Russian professors in Peking were instigating Li Dazhao. In 1920, in Canton, Russians establish a "Chinese communist party at Canton". In 1920, in Paris, Russians already began to recruit Sichuan and Hunan overseas students. In 1921, Russians merely picked the Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu gang to formalize the CCP under Comintern jurisdiction. Feng Yuxiang's military priests belonged to the first batch of Comintern agents. You want to get CCP Party Academy-published book, COMINTERN & CHINESE REVOLUTION, for all those under-the-table operations. By the way, over ten members of a Qinghua University class 1925 were sent to USA as agents.

Edited by ahxiang, 09 December 2007 - 09:16 PM.

[wlee15]

One person or two persons' reversing Chinese classics by claiming a different interpretation of ancient census did not validate that all the rest were wrong.

If you examine the population from 14th century to 20th century, you could tell there were two spikes, one in Qianlong period when poulation jumped by 5-6 folds to 143 million from 27.35 million, and the other period being communist China when population jumped to 1.5 billion today from 0.548 billion.

The qianlong jump could seem a mystery, but the data prior to that, from Ming Dynasty onward, was quite contiguous.

There is no basis to refute the fact that Manchu ruling was harsh, either you save the head or the hair.

1393年(明洪武二十六年 6054万人
1403年(明永乐元年) 6659万人
1491年(明弘治四年) 5328万人
1578年(明万历六年) 6069万人

1651年(清顺治八年) 1063万人
1656年(顺治十三年) 1541万人
1659年(顺治十六年) 1900万人
1684年(康熙二十三年) 2O34万人
1699年(康熙三十八年) 2041万人
1700年(康熙三十九年) 2041万人
1711年(康熙五十年) 2462万人
1719年(康熙五十八年) 2502万人
1724年(雍正二年) 2611万人
1726年(雍正四年) 2639万人
1734年(雍正十二年) 2735万人

1741年(乾隆六年) 14341万人
1742年(乾隆七年) 15980万人
1743年(乾隆八年) 16445万人
1746年(乾隆十一年) 17189万人
1751年(乾隆十六年) 18181万人
1757年(乾隆二十二年) 19034万人
1762年(乾隆二十七年) 20047万人
1768年(乾隆三十三年) 21083万人
1774年(乾隆三十九年) 22102万人
1775年(乾隆四十年) 26456万人
1777年(乾隆四十二年) 27086万人
1782年(乾隆四十七年) 28182万人
1786年(乾隆五十一年) 29110万人
1790年(乾隆五十五年) 30148万人
1793年(乾隆五十八年) 31049万人
1805年(嘉庆十年) 33218万人(福建、陕西求计在内)
1808年(嘉庆十三年) 35029万人
1822年(道光二年) 37245万人
1826年(道光六年) 38028万人
1829年(道光九年) 39050万人
1834年(道光十四年) 40100万人
1839年(道光十九年) 41085万人(湖南、福建、台湾末计在内)

1840年(道光二十年) 41281万人(湖南、福建米计在内)
1845年(道光二十五年) 42134万人
1851年(咸丰元年) 43216万人(湖南、福建、台湾末计在内)
1910年(宣统二年)十八省人口,民政部统计是33118万人,邮局调查是43842万人
1911年(宣统三年〕 37767万人(清朝最后一年)
1912年(民国元年) 35572万人

As I said the census of the Qing dynasty until 1736 recorded only poll tax paying Men(Ding/丁), and in fact this true for the Song Dynasty as well. This is why in your little box the ratio between population and household in 1110 was 2.24 or on average each household would only have 0.24 children! In 1736 the poll tax was abolished making the Ding census of limited usefulness so starting in 1736 the census was now desinged to capture the entire population rather than Ding. The population increase in the 20th century is plausible as the population double 2.5 times in a frame of approximately 50 years, the increase during of Yongzheng was a population that double 2.2 times in a period of 7 years.

[ahxiang]

As I said the census of the Qing dynasty until 1736 recorded only poll tax paying Men(Ding/丁), and in fact this true for the Song Dynasty as well. This is why in your little box the ratio between population and household in 1110 was 2.24 or on average each household would only have 0.24 children! In 1736 the poll tax was abolished making the Ding census of limited usefulness so starting in 1736 the census was now desinged to capture the entire population rather than Ding. The population increase in the 20th century is plausible as the population double 2.5 times in a frame of approximately 50 years, the increase during of Yongzheng was a population that double 2.2 times in a period of 7 years.

I guess you are not disputing the 50%+ jump of 143 million in AD 1741 to 310 million in AD 1793 during the Qianlong years.

What I was referring to as Manchu slaughter was the population drop to 10.63 million in AD 1651 from Ming Dynasty's number of 60.69 million in AD 1578.

I doubt there was any statistics collection changes that imperial court did not beware for the prior time periods. And the reason that the Manchus had the audacity to show in its imperial records the drop of population was its forged claim that Manchus obtained the Mandate of Heaven from Li Zicheng & Zhang Xianzhong rebellion, not from the Ming Dynasty. The forged claim that Zhang Xianzhong killed off all Sichuan Province people was an example. (You could see a sentence in Yuan Shi regarding the rebuilt population, namely, Mongols' claim that China was resucitated to the extent that even Han Dynasty and Tang Dynasty's population could not compare but skipped the citation of the population of the predecessor Song Dynasty. All pointed to the barbarians' subconsious guilt as to the conquest and slaughter of China.)

In lieu of your claim of poll tax, why can't you ascribe the population jump of 5-6 folds to 143 million from 27.35 million, from 1734 to 1741, to the gigantic territory expansion of Manchu Qing Empire across the Asian and Central Asian territories, including Chinese Turkistan and today's Khazakstan, and Soviet Tuva Republic? Everybody who read QING SHI GAO should have detected this gap in about seven years.

The ratios, beside which I put question mark, in your opinion, were the result of "poll tax" which exempted kids. In my opinion, it was Mongols and Manchus killing off the males and stuffed their households with women. This happened to North Korea after the war. People often joked about North Korean men in possession of half a dozen wives, which was true.

This population dispute does not invalidate the fact that Manchus, who had mastered the essence of ancestor worshipping and imperial exams, were the most cunning of all conquerors. Even the sea ban against European nations derived from their inherent fear of enriching the enemies to the extent that possibly hundreds of years later, the enemies (Europeans) would come back to haunt their [Manchu] sons and grandsons.

As pointed out by Luo Xianglin, Manchu court ruled Chinese, Mongols, Uygurs and Tibetans in four sharply different ways for sake of maintaining the absolute control. As to the Mongols, Manchu rule was to forbid the Mongols from reading of, writing in and learning the Chinese language and to strengthen the lamaism preaching among the Mongols. Luo Xianglin pointed out that Manchu intended to make Mongols less intelligent so that they could be easily employed for utilizing their "physical strength" as running dogs in wars. As to Tibetans, Manchu court adopted the policy of "respecting Tibetan religion but supressing its administration". Luo Xianglin pointed out that Manchu decreed that every Tibetan household must dispatch one son to monastery for studying the buddhism, hence making Tibetan population unable to multiply. Further, Manchu dispatched "imperial minister" to Tibet for monitoring Dalai Lama and Pancho Lama, and intentionally mixed up religion and politics so that Tibetans could not conduct any reform on administration. As to Uygurs, Manchu adopted the policy of disparaging on Islam and sowing dissension among Muslims and non-Muslims. By creating turmoil and rebellions, Manchu easily sent in troops for massacring the Uygurs.

This is how Manchu rule lasted over 247 years.

Edited by ahxiang, 11 December 2007 - 11:27 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

As to Manchu slaughter of Chinese, there was a discussion at
http://www.chinahist...showtopic=13884

1080年（北宋元丰三年） 3330万人
1110年（北宋大观四年） 4673万人
1195-1223年（金章宗明昌六年---南宋嘉定十六年） 7681万人
*
*
*
1290年（元至元二十七年） 5883万人
1393年（明洪武二十六年） 6054万人
1403年（明永乐元年） 6659万人
1491年（明弘治四年） 5328万人
1578年（明万历六年） 6069万人
1651年（清顺治八年） 1063万人
1656年（顺治十三年） 1541万人

I guess you are not disputing the 50%+ jump of 143 million in AD 1741 to 310 million in AD 1793 during the Qianlong years.

What I was referring to as Manchu slaughter was the population drop to 10.63 million in AD 1651 from Ming Dynasty's number of 60.69 million in AD 1578.

The last time I checked, your arguments in that thread have been crushed and as usual, you diverted the topic when you couldn't find a counter argument. (read it again for my updated refutations)
Lets start over. Which part of Chinese census after the Qing takeover is completely unreliable do you not understand?
The Qing population you gave was whats written on the census, which has been commonly disregarded in both China and the West nowadays.

Whatever agenda driven purpose that you may have, its unhistorical, unscientific, and dilapidated.
The multiplication of the population by tenfolds in 3 generations is a demographic impossibility with the agriculture of the time. Especially with a lack of immigration; nor were there any massive expansion into unsettled territory. This is further undermined by the fact that old China often practiced female infanticide, reducing the male-female balance and reducing net reproduction rate.
If you don't know anything about demographics, please don't stubbornly hold on to your unscientific theory.
Virtually all western historians disregard these figures, and most of the prominent Chinese demographic historians as well. The actual number of death in the transitional phases of the Yuan and Qing was about 1/3 of the population, not 60-70% and most of these deaths were not the result of killing by the invaders. Disease, famine, civil war accounts for much of the population reduction. For example, Zhang Xian Zhong already slaughtered massive amounts of people in Si Chuan before the Manchu takeover.

I derived the 76% by comparing the population of 51,655,459 at AD 1620 against 10,633,326 at AD 1651.

Quite some southern CHinese fled to SOutheast Asia. So, we could not say the Manchus killed all those unaccounted for

No, blindly concluding slaughter is an irresponsible and unscientific examination of demographic history, because as I've said, its a demographic impossibility. Demographers look for patterns in census variations and sort out and discard irregular figures as a sign of error or weakness of the census bureaucracy. The people that were unaccounted for were just that, they were not registered by the census, not because they were killed(in addition various other factors, such as famine, starvation, and civil war are present, not just Manchu slaughter).They are called Hidden households(影户) because the census weren't stable enough to enter every part of the country and collect tax from every household, especially when some households were constantly migrating to avoid war. Migrating households, as well as those that went in hiding would obviously not appear on the Census. Even modern bureaucracies miss figures, much less traditional Chinese ones, as advanced as it was for its time compared to other countries. The Shang Dong Renmin publication on the history of Chinese population by province, used both a benchmark projection from the Qian long era as well as critical analysis of primary texts to derive a population of 103,136,044 for all of China in 1661, not 21,068,609 as registered. Stop using classical history texts as a guide for population, they are not revised by modern demographic science and hence unreliable. I suggest you read the most authoritative books published on Chinese population: 中国人口通史 and 中国分省区历史人口考.


Here is a revised population estimate, the first column were the census, the second were the revised estimates:

年　份　　　　　《清实录》人口数　　推测人口数　　　　二者相差(大约)
康熙三十九年(1700年)　　 2010万　　　 1.5亿　　　　1亿　3000万
乾隆六年(1741年)　　　　　1.4亿　　　　 2亿　　　　　6000万
乾隆五十五年(1790年)　　　　3亿　　　 2.8亿　　　　　2000万
嘉庆二十五年(1820年)　　　3.5亿　　　 3.5亿　　　　　　0
道光三十年(1850年)　　　　4.1亿　　　 4.27亿　　　　 1700万
咸丰元年(1851年)　　　　　4.3亿　　　 4.3亿　　　　　　0*

One person or two persons' reversing Chinese classics by claiming a different interpretation of ancient census did not validate that all the rest were wrong.

Its not one or two person, but virtually the entire modern scholarly community in which the member's expertise are in demographics.

My previous debate with Warhead in regards to Mongol and Manchu slaughters were probably similar to this discussion. What Warhead was arguing was that Mongols had conquered China because they got the Chinese peasant support, the same way as Chinese communist victory in the civil war of 1945-1950; that over-emphasis on 'minority' massacre against majority Chinese was kind of chauvinism; and that the AD 1276 data was a good number- which I disputed as a number on paper when Mongols sacked Hangzhou the capital and took over Southern Song dowager empress.

No, thats not the crux of my argument at all. Stop distorting and misinterpreting something thats straight forward. I never said Mongols had peasant support, where did you fabricate that from? My point was that you are wrong about the Song census as well as your claim that most people of China died from Mongol slaughter, because you simply don't understand the flaw of Chinese census. In fact from all these comments you made, its obvious that you don't have a slight understanding of demographics. You've admitted that you weren't a demographic professional in another thread, thats clear, so stop acting like you are one and listen to people who actually are. Namely, demographic historians of whom you completely ignored.
And even now you do not have the integrity to admit your previous mistake and try to find lame excuses to uphold your ridiculous figures. The 1276 data wasn't the only number which undermines your obsolete figure of 13 million people for the Song, the Yuan census of 1290 likely registers a population of 11,840,000 households, meaning that your figure of 13 million, as Wu Song Di mentioned was clearly unreliable since it stood in contrast with all the other census patterns(which even then underestimates the population).
Furthermore, the census of 1276 of over 19 million subjects(excluding Guan Dong, Guan Xi and Fujian) for the Southern Song was a Yuan census, and the census of 11,840,000 was taken by the Yuan bureaucracy in more than a decade after the Song surrender, they are not Song census.(And both are still underestimating the population) So stop mistakenly attribute the Song empress for handing these figures to the Yuan, because these census has nothing to do with that. Read back to that thread again on why you are wrong. It would save me plenty of time to explain them again.

About revolution and overthrow of a regime. In China's past, dynastic changes usually came with mutinies. Rarely rebellions could succeed. HUang Cao Rebellion of Tang Dynasty was a mutiny, for example, not a peasant rebellion. Li Zicheng rebellion of late Ming was a mutiny of "imperial mail route troops". Chinese communist rebellions of 1927 were all mutinies, including Mao's autumn harvest, Heh Long's August 1st Nanchang, Deng Xiaoping's Right River, Kuang Jixun's Hubei-Sichuan rebellion, and Liu Zhidan's Shenxi rebellion.

Mutinies and rebellions are the same thing, just viewed from two perspectives, one imperial, one communist. You do understand what subjectivity is do you?

I doubt there was any statistics collection changes that imperial court did not beware for the prior time periods. And the reason that the Manchus had the audacity to show in its imperial records the drop of population was its forged claim that Manchus obtained the Mandate of Heaven from Li Zicheng & Zhang Xianzhong rebellion, not from the Ming Dynasty.

Ahxiang, that comment was a joke. If you don't know something, don't make up baseless theories. The methodology of Qing census were clearly different after 1715. Thanks to KangXi's comment; "滋生人丁，永不加赋". Your comment on "Manchu audacity to show imperial records" is laughable and shows that you simply don't understand how Qing bureaucracy functioned. Census were not taken for propaganda purposes, they were taken for taxation and has always been so for the past 2 thousand years of Chinese history. Every dynasty had to take census or they would not know how much to tax. Census is a way for the central authority to better control the population and reap as much benefit from them as possible. It was never used as a way to justify a new regime. They didn't need to; census figures were something kept by magistrates and the commoners never had access to them. (The Qing Shi Gao was a republican era book that took these census from archives, not known to the mass.)Figures were conducted by local magistrates, most of whom were Han, who report them to the emperor. And many of these magistrates under-report the Census so they could evade giving tax to the central authority and keep the money to themselves. Corruption was rampant, and that was why Kang Xi reformed the taxation. Its not a coincidence that after that year, the population census soared.

In another word, the Qing undertook a census not because they needed it to justify their regime, but out of financial necessity.

Edited by warhead, 09 February 2008 - 03:32 PM.

[god]

What I was referring to as Manchu slaughter was the population drop to 10.63 million in AD 1651 from Ming Dynasty's number of 60.69 million in AD 1578.

Most modern estimation of the late Ming population range from 120-200 million, while the early Qing was between 100-120 million.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

In lieu of your claim of poll tax, why can't you ascribe the population jump of 5-6 folds to 143 million from 27.35 million, from 1734 to 1741, to the gigantic territory expansion of Manchu Qing Empire across the Asian and Central Asian territories, including Chinese Turkistan and today's Khazakstan, and Soviet Tuva Republic? Everybody who read QING SHI GAO should have detected this gap in about seven years.

From this ignorant post, its clear you know nothing about Chinese geography or Qing expansion. And its also clear that you never read much of Qing Shi Gao as you pretended that you did. First off, Qing took Xinjiang in 1757, not 1741. Your thesis is off by nearly two decades. If you actually read the Qing Shi Gao, you've have know that, but you didn't, and you are not fooling anyone here. If thats the way you treat all of your theories, then I'm afraid you are nothing but a fraud. Second, central Asia is a territory of mostly desert. Even as late as 1820, 嘉庆一统志 records a census that add up to a number of 557,925. Under modern revisionism, the total population of Xin Jiang at this time was only 1,976,000. And none of these were due to migration. Those territory in Khazakstan are uninhabited steppe land and the Qing had to sent ka lun inspectors annualy to keep out khazak nomads. Mass Han migration into the area (or any territory outside of the Ming for that matter)only began in the 19th century, namely after Zuo Zong Tang's reconquest.

Lastly, the reason why population can't increase by 5-6 folds in just 7 years is a simple demographic problem of which you know nothing about. Seventy mou of land is needed to feed a family. There are no fundamental improvements of tillage during the Qing, population growth could therefore, only be achieved through horizontal expansion of arable land size. Yet the amount of registered fields in 1729-1750 barely increased at all(from 8,781,760 ch'ing). This mean that the population couldn't possibly just explode in this short duration. No where or time in the history of man, even in the 20th century was this possible, not even during the PRC, with new technology and a doctrine to promote growth.

Edited by warhead, 09 February 2008 - 04:12 PM.

[ahxiang]

From this ignorant post, its clear you know nothing about Chinese geography or Qing expansion. And its also clear that you never read much of Qing Shi Gao as you pretended that you did. First off, Qing took Xinjiang in 1757, not 1741. Your thesis is off by nearly two decades. If you actually read the Qing Shi Gao, you've have know that, but you didn't, and you are not fooling anyone here. If thats the way you treat all of your theories, then I'm afraid you are nothing but a fraud. Second, central Asia is a territory of mostly desert. Even as late as 1820, 嘉庆一统志 records a census that add up to a number of 557,925. Under modern revisionism, the total population of Xin Jiang at this time was only 1,976,000. And none of these were due to migration. Those territory in Khazakstan are uninhabited steppe land and the Qing had to sent ka lun inspectors annualy to keep out khazak nomads. Mass Han migration into the area (or any territory outside of the Ming for that matter)only began in the 19th century, namely after Zuo Zong Tang's reconquest.

Lastly, the reason why population can't increase by 5-6 folds in just 7 years is a simple demographic problem of which you know nothing about. Seventy mou of land is needed to feed a family. There are no fundamental improvements of tillage during the Qing, population growth could therefore, only be achieved through horizontal expansion of arable land size. Yet the amount of registered fields in 1729-1750 barely increased at all(from 8,781,760 ch'ing). This mean that the population couldn't possibly just explode in this short duration. No where or time in the history of man, even in the 20th century was this possible, not even during the PRC, with new technology and a doctrine to promote growth.

You can't quit rebutting me because you are afraid of the fact that both Mongols and Manchu had slaughtered the majority Chinese in history. I could understand why you want to be apologetic for the mass murderers in history.

As for those quotes you gave that refuted China's classics as being of any accuracy, they had no ground to stand. Spence, the notorious writing of whom was the "Search of Modern China", has only one good writing in my opinion, i.e., the one on Taiping rebellion. The wild claim that China's dynasties under-reported population by 400-500% was simply made up to mark him [Spence] someone who was so smart while the whole Chinese intelligentsia of over 500 years were idiots.

I do not believe ancient stats were 100% correct. But they were very close to reality. There was no sense for anybody to fabricate the numbers.

As to the mathematical "regression"
年　份　　　　 　《清实录》人口数　　 推测人口数　　　　 二者相差(大约)
康熙三十九年(1700年)　　 2010万　　　 1.5亿　　　 　1亿　3000万
乾隆六年(1741年)　　　　　 1.4亿　　　　 2亿　　　　　 6000万
乾隆五十五年(1790年)　　　　3亿　　　 2.8亿　　 　　 　2000万
嘉庆二十五年(1820年)　　　 3.5亿　　　 3.5亿　　　　 　 　0
道光三十年(1850年)　　　 　4.1亿　　　 4.27亿　　 　　 1700万
咸丰元年(1851年)　　　　　 4.3亿　　　 4.3亿　　　　 　 　0*

it was pure fantasy. What this guy was suggesting was that the whole Manchu Qing dynasty was of one social structure and hence should follow the same growth rate of .7%. This is ludicruous at best.

Now, you kept repeating the quote “盛世滋生人丁，永不加赋”. What does this sentence mean? It meant nothing other than the exemption of tax on the abnormally high INCREMENTAL "adult male population", not the whole male generation of people during the so-called 盛世 - properous world. If there was a uniform 0.7% mulplicity, then it made no sense to decree this special exemption for the abnormally high INCREMENTAL male population.

More, you do not understand ancient definition as to what DING "丁" meant, and what KOU " 口" meant. And, you don't know ancient classics specifically stated that 丁口系於戶, i.e., DING "丁" + KOU " 口" = HU "戶".
DING "丁" meant the males - the poll tax base that you and the other guy kept on talking about, while KOU " 口" meant women, girls, and under-age boys. Nowhere did ancient Chinese mistook DING "丁" as HU "戶". Same is true with Ming-Qing dynasties, or Song-Yuan dynasties.

In no time was Manchu Qing dynasty excluding the population of women, girls, and under-age boys from the definition of HU "戶".

Hope you will read the following chapter in QING SHI GAO.

I will find time to expound the main points paragraph by paragraph.

食貨一




戶口田制

戶口清之民數，惟外籓扎薩克所屬編審丁檔掌於理籓院。其各省諸色人戶，由其地
長官以十月造冊，限次年八月咨送戶部，浙江清吏司司之。而滿洲、蒙古、漢軍丁檔則
司於戶部八旗俸餉處。年終，將民數匯繕黃冊以聞。

其戶之別，曰軍，曰民，曰匠，曰灶。此外若回、番、羌、苗、瑤、黎、夷等戶，
皆隸於所在府、□、州、縣。凡民，男曰丁，女曰口。男年十六為成丁，未成丁亦曰口。
丁口系於戶。凡腹民計以丁口，邊民計以戶。蓋番、回、黎、苗、瑤、夷人等，久經向
化，皆按丁口編入民數。其以戶計者，如三姓所屬赫哲、費雅喀、奇勒爾、庫葉、鄂倫
春、哈克拉五十六姓，甘肅各土司，及莊浪□所屬番子，西藏各土司所屬三十九族，烏
裡雅蘇台所屬唐努烏梁海貢貂戶，科布多所屬阿爾泰烏梁海貢貂戶、貢狐皮戶，阿爾泰
諾爾烏梁海貢貂戶、貢灰鼠皮戶，皆是。至土司所屬番、夷人等，但報明寨數、族數，
不計戶者不與其數。

For "innerland people", local governments were required to differentiate between DING and KOU and itemize both. DING "丁" + KOU " 口" = HU "戶". Southern, southeastern and southwestern 'minority' people, should report in same way, i.e., itemization. For Manchuria area, Mongolia, and Altai area, i.e., borderland area, those people just needed to report HU -households the GROSS number, not ITEMIZED numbers, [the same way as ancient Han Dynasty treated the stats for the Huns].

凡民之著籍，其別有四：曰民籍；曰軍籍，亦稱衛籍；曰商籍；曰灶籍。其經理之
也，必察其祖籍。如人戶於寄居之地置有墳廬逾二十年者，准入籍出仕，令聲明祖籍回
避。倘本身已故，子孫於他省有田土丁糧，原附入籍者，聽。軍流人等子孫隨配入籍者，
准其考試之類是也。又必辨其宗系。如民人無子，許立同宗昭穆相當者為後。其有女婿、
義男及收養三歲以下小兒，酌給財產，不得遂以為嗣之類是也。且必區其良賤。如四民
為良，奴僕及倡優為賤。凡衙署應役之皁隸、馬快、步快、小馬、禁卒、門子、弓兵、
仵作、糧差及巡捕營番役，皆為賤役，長隨與奴僕等。其有冒籍、跨籍、跨邊、僑籍皆
禁之。

"People" were subdivided into four categories, civilian, military, merchant and ZAO [灶籍] categories. Strict regulations were enforced to prevent any violation of faking-category, trans-category, borrowing-category ...

世祖入關，有編置戶口牌甲之令。其法，州縣城鄉十戶立一牌長，十牌立一甲長，
十甲立一保長。戶給印牌，書其姓名丁口。出則注所往，入則稽所來。其寺觀亦一律頒
給，以稽僧道之出入。其客店令各立一簿，書寓客姓名行李，以便稽察。及乾隆二十二
年，更定十五條：一，直省所屬每戶歲給門牌，牌長、甲長三年更代，保長一年更代。
凡甲內有盜竊、邪教、賭博、賭具、窩逃、姦拐、私鑄、私銷、私鹽、跴曲、販賣硝磺，
並私立名色斂財聚會等事，及面生可疑之徒，責令專司查報。戶口遷移登耗，隨時報明，
門牌內改換填給。一，紳衿之家，與齊民一體編列。一，旗民雜處村莊，一體編列。旗
人、民人有犯，地方官會同理事同知辦理，至各省駐防營內商民貿易居住，及官兵僱用
人役，均另編牌冊，報明理事□查核。一，邊外蒙古地方種地民人，設立牌頭總甲及十
家長等。如有偷竊為匪，及隱匿逃人者，責令查報。一，凡客民在內地貿易，或置有產
業者，與土著一律順編。一，鹽場井灶，另編排甲，所雇工人，隨灶戶填注。一，礦廠
丁戶，廠員督率廠商、課長及峒長、爐頭等編查。各處煤窯僱主，將傭工人等冊報地方
查痋C一，各省山居棚民，按戶編冊，地主並保甲結報。廣東寮民，每寮給牌，互相保
結。一，沿海等省商漁船隻，取具澳甲族鄰保結，報官給照。商船將船主、舵工、水手
年貌籍貫並填照內，出洋時，取具各船互結，至汛口照驗放行。漁船止填船主年貌籍貫。
其內洋采捕小艇，責令澳甲稽查。至內河船隻，於船尾設立粉牌，責令埠頭查察。其漁
船網戶、水次搭棚趁食之民，均歸就近保甲管束。一，苗人寄籍內地，久經編入民甲者，
照民人一例編查。其餘各處苗、瑤，千百戶及頭人、峒長等稽查約束。一，雲南有夷、
民錯處者，一體編入保甲。其依山傍水自成村落者，令管事頭目造冊稽查。一，川省客
民，同土著一例編查。一，甘肅番子土民，責成土司查察。系地方官管轄者，令所管頭
目編查，地方官給牌冊報。其四川改土歸流各番寨，令鄉約甲長等稽查，均聽撫夷掌堡
管束。一，寺觀僧道，令僧綱、道紀按季冊報。其各省回民，令禮拜寺掌教稽查。一，
外來流丐，保正督率丐頭稽查，少壯者遞回原籍安插，其餘歸入棲流等所管束。自是立
法益密。

Strict neighborhood watch system, 保甲, was enforced since QIng Emperor Shizu took over China.

時各省番、苗與內地民人言語不通，常有肇釁之事。二十四年，定番界、苗疆禁例。
凡台灣民、番不許結親，違者離異。各省民人無故擅入苗地，及苗人無故擅入民地，均
照例治罪。若往來貿易，必取具行戶鄰右保結，報官給照，令塘汛驗放始往。

Barbarians in the mountains as well as in Taiwan were segregated.

棚民之稱，起於江西、浙江、福建三省。各山縣內，向有民人搭棚居住，藝麻種箐，
開爐煽鐵，造紙制菇為業。而廣東窮民入山搭寮，取香木舂粉、析薪燒炭為業者，謂之
寮民。雍正四年，定例照保甲法一體編查。乾隆二十八年，定各省棚民單身賃墾者，令
於原籍州縣領給印票，並有親族保領，方准租種安插。倘有來歷不明，責重保人糾察報
究。五十五年，諭：「廣東總督奏稱，撤毀雷、廉交界海面之潿洲及迤東之斜陽地方寮
房，遞回原籍，免與洋盜串通滋事，並毀校椅灣等三十二處寮房共百六十二戶，另行撫
恤安插。沿海各省所屬島嶼，多有內地民人安居樂業。若遽飭令遷移，使數十萬生民流
離失所，於心何忍。且恐辦理不善，轉使良民變而為匪。所有各省海島，除例應封禁者
外，餘均仍舊居住。至零星散處，皆系貧民，尤不可獨令向隅。而漁戶出洋探捕，暫在
海島搭寮棲止，亦不可概行禁絕。且人民既少，稽察無難，惟在各督撫嚴飭文武員弁編
立保甲。如有盜匪混入，及窩藏為匪者，一經查出，將所居寮房概行燒燬，俾知儆懼。
其漁船出入口岸，務期取結給照，登記姓名。倘進口時藏有貨物，形跡可疑，嚴行盤詰，
自不難立時拏獲也。」五十七年，諭：「據福寧所奏，山東一省海島居民二萬餘名口，
各省海島想亦不少。當遵照前言，不准添建房屋，以至日聚日眾。仍應留心訪察，勿任
勾結匪徒，滋生事端。」咸豐元年，浙江巡撫常大淳奏言：「浙江棚民開山過多，以致
沙淤土壅，有礙水道田廬。請設法編查安插，分別去留。」如所議行。

Migrants on the moutains of southern China of Jiangxi, Zhejiang, and Fujian were forced into neighborhood watch system, 保甲, system since Emperor Yongzhen time period

四川經張獻忠之亂，孑遺者百無一二，耕種皆三江、湖廣流寓之人。雍正五年，因
逃荒而至者益眾。諭令四川州縣將人戶逐一稽查姓名籍貫，果系無力窮民，即量人力多
寡，給荒地五六十畝或三四十畝，令其開墾。

其吉林寧古塔、伯都訥、阿勒楚喀、拉林等地方，乾隆二十七年定例不准無籍流民
居住。及三十四年，吉林將軍傅良奏：「阿勒楚喀、拉林地方流民二百四十二戶，請限
一年盡行驅逐。」上曰：「流寓既在定例之前，應准入籍墾種，一例安插，俾無失所。」
嘉慶中，郭爾羅斯復有內地新來流民二千三百三十戶，吉林□有千四百五十九戶，長春
□有六千九百五十三戶，均經將軍奏令入冊安置。其山東民人徙居口外者，在康熙五十
一年已有十萬餘人。聖祖諭：「嗣後山東民人有到口外及由口外回山東者，應查明年貌
籍貫，造冊稽查，互相對覈。」其後直隸、山西民人亦多有出口者。

雍正初，因陸續設古北口、張家口、歸化城三同知管理，旋移萬全縣縣丞於張家口，
其古北口增設巡檢一，歸化城增設通判四、巡檢一，各按所屬民人，照保甲法，將姓名
籍貫註冊，逐年咨部查覈。凡民人出入關口，由原籍州縣給印票驗明放行。所有放過票
張，造冊報部。

其福建、廣東民人徙居台灣者尤眾。嘉慶十五年，浙閩總督方維甸奏：「噶瑪蘭田
土膏腴，內地民人流寓者多。現檢查戶口，漳州人四萬二千五百餘丁，泉州人二百五十
餘丁，粵東人百四十餘丁，與生熟各番雜處，必須有所鈐制。」於是議增噶瑪蘭通判一。
此外如江蘇銅、沛兩縣，自黃河退涸，變為荒田，山東曹、濟等屬民人陸續前往，創立
湖團，相率墾種。銅、沛土民因客民占墾，日相控鬥。同治五年，戶部奏：「查明容留
捻匪之刁、王兩團，驅回原籍。安分良團，即令各安生業。」凡此夷、漢之雜處，土、
客之相猜，慮其滋事，則嚴為之防，憫其無歸，則寬為之所，要皆以保甲為要圖。

顧保甲行於平時，而編審則丁賦之所由出也。編審之制，州縣官造冊上之府，府別
造一總冊上之布政司。凡軍、民、匠、灶四籍，各分上中下三等。丁有民丁、站丁、土
軍丁、衛丁、屯丁。總其丁之數而登黃冊。督撫據布政司冊報達之戶部，匯疏以聞。順
治十四年，命州縣官編審戶口，增丁至二千名以上，各予紀錄。康熙五十一年，有「新
增人丁永不加賦」之諭，自是聖祖仁政，遂與一代相終始。顧丁有開除，即不能不有抵
補。故康熙五十五年，戶部請以編審新增人丁補足舊缺額數，如有餘丁，歸入滋生冊內
造報，從之。高宗諭內閣曰：「朕查上年各省奏報民數，較之康熙年間，計增十餘倍。
承平日久，生齒日繁，蓋藏自不能如前充裕。且廬捨所占田土，亦不啻倍蓰。生之者寡，
食之者眾，朕甚憂之。猶幸朕臨御以來，闢土開疆，幅員日廓，小民皆得開墾邊外地土，
藉以暫謀衣食。然為之計及久遠，非野無曠土，家有贏糧，未易享升平之福。各省督撫
及有牧民之責者，務當隨時勸諭，俾皆儉樸成風，惜物力而盡地利，慎勿以奢靡相競，
習於怠惰也。是時編審之制已停，直省所報民數，大率以歲造之煙戶冊為據。行之日久，
有司視為具文，所報多不詳覈，其何以體朕欲周知天下民數之心乎？」又諭：「據鄭輝
祖稱，從前所辦民數冊，歲歲滋生之數，一律雷同。似此簡率相沿，成何事體！所有各
省本年應進民冊，均展至明年年底。倘再疏舛，定當予以處分。」當時民冊恐不免任意
填造之弊，然自聖祖以來，休養生息百有餘年，民生其間，自少至老，不知有兵革之患，
而又年豐人樂，無有夭札疵癘，轉徙顛踣以至於凋耗者，其戶口繁庶，究不可謂盡出子
虛也。

至編審之停，始於雍正四年。直隸總督李紱改編審行保甲一疏略雲：「編審五年一
舉，雖意在清戶口，不如保甲更為詳密，既可稽察游民，且不必另查戶口。請自後嚴飭
編排人丁，自十六歲以上，無許一名遺漏。歲底造冊，布政司匯齊，另造總冊進呈。冊
內止開裡戶人丁實數，免列花戶，則簿籍不煩而丁數大備矣。」乾隆五年，戶部又請令
各督撫於每年十一月，將戶口數與穀數一並造報；番疆、苗界不入編審者，不在此例。
從之。三十七年，從李瀚請，永停編審。自是惟有運漕軍丁四年一編審而已。

蓋清承明季喪亂，戶口凋殘。經累朝休養生息，故戶口之數，歲有加增。約而舉之：
順治十八年，會計天下民數，千有九百二十萬三千二百三十三口。康熙五十年，二千四
百六十二萬一千三百二十四口。六十年，二千九百一十四萬八千三百五十九口，又滋生
丁四十六萬七千八百五十口。雍正十二年，二千六百四十一萬七千九百三十二口，又滋
生丁九十三萬七千五百三十口。乾隆二十九年，二萬五百五十九萬一千一十七口。六十
年，二萬九千六百九十六萬五百四十五口。嘉慶二十四年，三萬一百二十六萬五百四十
五口。道光二十九年，四萬一千二百九十八萬六千六百四十九口。鹹、同之際，兵革四
起，冊報每缺數省，其可稽者，只二萬數千萬口不等。光緒元年，三萬二千二百六十五
萬五千七百八十一口。

A special census was conducted in 18th year of Emperor Shunzhi, with measures by HU-KOU the household, not DING for male.

三十二年，釐定官制，以戶部為度支部，而改前所設之巡警部為民政部，調查戶口，
歸其職掌，各省則以巡警道專司其事。明年，諭直省造報民數，務須確查實數，以為庶
政根本。民政部奏稱：「伏查三十二年黑龍江、安徽、江蘇、福建、甘肅、廣西、雲南
丁冊，並三十一年丁冊，均未補造。在各督撫明知逾限，例當查參，而積習挽回不易。
臣部於接收伊始，籌一切實辦法，擬請敕下各督撫，責成府、□、州、縣，分鄉分區，
自行調查丁口確數，統以每年十二月底截算，以清界限。仍限次年十月送部匯奏。」制
可。

宣統元年，復頒行填造戶口格式，令先查戶口數，限明年十月報齊，續查口數，限
宣統四年十月報齊。至三年十月，據京師內外城、順天府、各直省、各旗營、各駐防、
各蒙旗所報，除新疆、湖北、廣東、廣西各省，江寧、青州、西安、涼州、伊犁、貴州、
西寧各駐防，泰寧鎮、熱河各蒙旗，川、滇邊務，均未冊報到部外，凡正戶五千四百六
十六萬八千有四，附戶千四百五十七萬八千三百七十，共六千九百二十四萬六千三百七
十四戶；凡口數男一萬三千九百六十六萬二千四百一十，女九千九百九十三萬二千二百
有八，共二萬三千九百五十九萬四千六百六十八口。


More census were conducted. An updated household number was given for Xuantong 1st year.

Edited by ahxiang, 11 February 2008 - 11:26 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

You can't quit rebutting me because you are afraid of the fact that both Mongols and Manchu had slaughtered the majority Chinese in history. I could understand why you want to be apologetic for the mass murderers in history.

.

No， Ahxiang， you are naive if you think I give a crud about defending historical events that already passed. Unlike you, I am not attached to a meaningless past. I'm only fed up with your porno nationalism and your utter incompetence in history. Your facts are either selective or plain wrong. And you like to speak about nonsense about matters which you either never read or never bothered to read. You lack the integrity of a historian and you give history a bad name. I can't quit rebutting you simply because I can't allow you to ruin the scholarly atmosphere of this forum.

As for those quotes you gave that refuted China's classics as being of any accuracy, they had no ground to stand. Spence, the notorious writing of whom was the "Search of Modern China", has only one good writing in my opinion, i.e., the one on Taiping rebellion. The wild claim that China's dynasties under-reported population by 400-500% was simply made up to mark him [Spence] someone who was so smart while the whole Chinese intelligentsia of over 500 years were idiots.

[/b]

AhXiang, Please don’t try to tell me the meaning of sources you’ve never even read. You are a mockery to demographics. And from the ignorant rubbish you've posted above, it becomes even clearer now how little you understand about demographic historiography. Doubts and revisionism on Chinese demographics has been circulating long before Spence was even born. Prominent Sinologists like Fitzgerald has already questioned Chinese census as early as the 20s. In fact, even ancient historians question about the census. Most Ming scholars knew that the census of the time was inaccurate. One example was Cheng Quan's book 蓬窗日录， written during Jia Jing's time, which records; "我朝洪武之兴，当元乱残毁之后，户口当耗，至嘉靖中，户九百三十五万一千九百零七，口五千八百五十五万七千七百三十八，亦可谓盛矣。然今制军等户不分析，民间口之不入籍者十漏六七。" "十漏六七" meant that about 2/3 of the entire population of the Ming was not registered. By just making a crude estimation of Cheng Quan's comment alone, we could already triple the figure on the Census, adding the military households, the real population for the Ming was around 170 million, and thats relying on primary sources alone.

Modern estimations such as the 中国人口通史 and 中国分省区历史人口考 didn't just fabricate numbers as you ignorantly think, they examined a range of ancient texts as well, texts that you've never even read. As I've repeated countless times, modern science give historian a range of tools for research, from archeology, geology, to a large quantity of primary texts. Your pitiful research are nowhere near their scope or depth. They have nothing to do with Spence, and your comments only further reveals your ludicrousness. (Spence is not even a demographic historian, his comments are far less professional than these publications.)
And instead of re-examining the facts as a historian would, you embarrass yourself further by fabricating information about Spence, pathetically.

I do not believe ancient stats were 100% correct. But they were very close to reality. There was no sense for anybody to fabricate the numbers.

Its like talking to an insect or playing lute to an ox. Read my lips. Ancient census are imperfect. Even the ancients themselves notes it. As I've already explained above, many of the local magistrates under-report the Census so they could evade giving tax to the central authority and keep the money to themselves. Thats the first reason why census prior to Kang Xi's reform are unreliable.
Secondly, its not a matter of fabrication, but the lack of ability for the bureaucracy to conduct an accurate census. During war, numerous people went into hiding, or escape to foreign province and does not enter the registration. If you knew anything about how bureaucracy conducted census, you would never have uttered something so transparently ignorant.

t was pure fantasy. What this guy was suggesting was that the whole Manchu Qing dynasty was of one social structure and hence should follow the same growth rate of .7%. This is ludicruous at best.

I'm afraid the fantasy is from you, my friend, not from them. The growth rate is roughly even because they're called estimates . Why don't you do some homework first and read about some basic concept about demographics. Then you'll understand why its impossible for the population to increase over 5 fold in 7 years. For now, this topic is way over your level of understanding.

Now, you kept repeating the quote “盛世滋生人丁，永不加赋”. What does this sentence mean? It meant nothing other than the exemption of tax on the abnormally high INCREMENTAL "adult male population", not the whole male generation of people during the so-called 盛世 - properous world. If there was a uniform 0.7% mulplicity, then it made no sense to decree this special exemption for the abnormally high INCREMENTAL male population.

If you can count, I mentioned it only once, not repeatedly. And that was to make a point on the shift in census policy, not as a means to prove the census itself.

More, you do not understand ancient definition as to what DING "丁" meant, and what KOU " 口" meant. And, you don't know ancient classics specifically stated that 丁口系於戶, i.e., DING "丁" + KOU " 口" = HU "戶".
DING "丁" meant the males - the poll tax base that you and the other guy kept on talking about, while KOU " 口" meant women, girls, and under-age boys. Nowhere did ancient Chinese mistook DING "丁" as HU "戶". Same is true with Ming-Qing dynasties, or Song-Yuan dynasties.

In no time was Manchu Qing dynasty excluding the population of women, girls, and under-age boys from the definition of HU "戶".

AhXiang, this is boring. Do you think anyone who reads Chinese is stupid enough to mistake Ding with Kou? It has no relevance to this discussion, if you divert from topic again by posting a whole paragraph of useless information, I'd have to report you for trolling.

Hope you will read the following chapter in QING SHI GAO.

I will find time to expound the main points paragraph by paragraph.

No please don't waste any more of my time by posting irrelevant information.

Edited by warhead, 12 February 2008 - 01:44 PM.