47 replies to this topic

[ahxiang]

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 garrison, merchant and ZAO [灶籍 - salt worker] 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 - interpreted te be the total population of each 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.

This post is not for apologizers of mass murderers in Chinese history. Example: the apologizer disclaimed Mongol slaughter of Chinese by rebutting the 50-YEAR ATTRITION WAR between Southern Song and the Mongols.

The above text from Qing Shi Gao clearly proved that Manchu Qing murderers, after forcing the queue onto the Chinese with no mercy policy, had erected a strict policy of "collective punishment", stating that all Chinese males and women, girls, and under-age boys must be itemized for census reporting on annual basis. Especially is the sentence to the effect that no SINGLE boy above the age of 16 should be ommitted. What you see from Manchu policies were a similar "household registration policy" as practiced by the communists, namely, visitors to a place outside of his or her hometown needed to register.

My question for any serious person interested in Chinese history is: Do you think Manchu [[t***s]] could have allowed any Chinese to escape unaccounted for?

Example of Manchu manhunt would be the story of resistance leader Zhang Qihuang. Zhang, after years of hiding in Fujian mountains, were caught by Manchu and killed. Pay special attention to the passage about rounding up the "PENG HU", i.e., the migrants or escapees who sought shelter and constructed HUTS in mountains of Zhejiang-Fujian-Jiangxi - the same haven that Japanese failed to penetrate in WWII, as well as the same place the Chinese communist New 4th Corps was planning to wrestle in expectation of Japanese penetration along the Zhejiang-Jiangxi Railway.

Population fluctuations in Qing Dynasty had to be looked at in the perspective of wars and turmoil. Sichuan Province, long claimed to be wiped out by Zhang Xianzhong, however, engaged in wars against Manchu for 20-30 years. Manchu had burnt 100,000 Chjinese classics to forge their accounts of historical events. To get the correct perspective, one has to read the history back and forth.

Edited by ahxiang, 12 February 2008 - 10:15 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

If you have nothing valuable to provide and nothing to support your already debunked statement, I suggest you stop trolling on the board with information that has nothing to do with the thread. Your racial comments are already considered flame baiting, keep this up and you might get banned.
No one here is an apologizer, and no one ever said that there were no massacre, so stop distorting my words. This wasn't my problem with you. My problem with you is your intellectual dishonesty, your selective reading of sources, your utter incompetence in census and your stubborness on matters which you have no knowledge about whatsoever.
Your accusation is not only worthless, its ungrounded, as are the rest of your arguments. It might be beyond an ultra nationalist's pitiful intellect to comprehend that not everyone study history for a political agenda, but at least try to understand that not everyone is like you. There are lots of people who study fact for fact's sake alone.

Edited by warhead, 12 February 2008 - 01:25 PM.

[Yang Zongbao]

Ahxiang, I will have to ask you to tone down your debate with Warhead.

If you will speak, then you certainly will not refer to other races as "thugs" and other things.

This will be a verbal warning, should further complaints follow about your words and actions, you can be sure that there will be closer surveillance put on you following sufficient disciplinary action.

May I also note that Red Text is actually reserved for mods and staff use, and only strictly to chastise?

[ahxiang]

If you have nothing valuable to provide and nothing to support your already debunked statement, I suggest you stop trolling on the board with information that has nothing to do with the thread. Your racial comments are already considered flame baiting, keep this up and you might get banned.
No one here is an apologizer, and no one ever said that there were no massacre, so stop distorting my words. This wasn't my problem with you. My problem with you is your intellectual dishonesty, your selective reading of sources, your utter incompetence in census and your stubborness on matters which you have no knowledge about whatsoever.
Your accusation is not only worthless, its ungrounded, as are the rest of your arguments. It might be beyond an ultra nationalist's pitiful intellect to comprehend that not everyone study history for a political agenda, but at least try to understand that not everyone is like you. There are lots of people who study fact for fact's sake alone.

My calling the Manchu butchers by t**s could be a bit over-done. I could definitely tone down on that. If RED is reserved, then no problem I could stop using that. You don't have to threaten me to make your points.

Now, I do have some definite Manchu imperial edicts to prove the points and settle this dispute over the population once and for all.

In QING SHI GAO, there was a passage about the tremendous population growth.

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。

What Manchu Emperor Gaozong [Qianlong] said here was that the population in his reign was over dozen folds more than that of the predecessor reign by Yongzheng. The emperor knew better than you, I guess.

The edict explains the huge gap that every learned Chinese had seen for past hundreds of years but a few guys claimed to be either hoax or under-reporting by prior periods or a matter of poll tax vs. population.

1578年（明万历六年） 6069万人
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：
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
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。 19,203,233
1684年（康熙二十三年） 2O34万人
1699年（康熙三十八年） 2041万人
康熙三十九年(1700年)　　 2010万
康熙五十年，二千四百六十二萬一千三百二十四口。 24,621,324 AD 1711
1719年（康熙五十八年） 2502万人
康熙六十年，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。 29,148,359 467,850
1724年（雍正二年） 2611万人
1726年（雍正四年） 2639万人
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。 26,417,932 937,530
1734年（雍正十二年） 2735万人

乾隆六年(1741年)　　　　　 143,411,559
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
乾隆二十九年，二萬五百五十九萬一千一十七口。 205,591,017 AD 1764
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
乾隆六十年，二萬九千六百九十六萬五百四十五口。 296,960,545
1805年（嘉庆十年） 33218万人（福建、陕西末计在内）
1808年（嘉庆十三年） 35029万人
嘉慶二十四年，三萬一百二十六萬五百四十五口。 301,260,545
嘉庆二十五年(1820年)　　　 3.5亿
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
道光二十九年，四萬一千二百九十八萬六千六百四十九口。 412,986,649
道光三十年(1850年)　　　 　 4.1亿
咸丰元年(1851年)　　　　　 43216万人（湖南、福建、台湾末计在内）
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。 322,655,781
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



In any case, even if under-reporting by prior periods or the claim of poll tax vs. population had some merit, they did not explain the fact that the early Manchu period showed a climb from the bottom of 10.63 million in AD 1651 which was 70% around less than the 60.69 million population that Ming Dynasty once enjoyed at AD 1578.

1578年（明万历六年） 6069万人
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：
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
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。 19,203,233
1684年（康熙二十三年） 2O34万人
1699年（康熙三十八年） 2041万人

The final lesson from Manchu Qing records, for everybody on this forum thread, is: Manchu Qing's neighborhood watch and collective punishment was far far severe and strict that could be imagined. In my opinion, the system of control was extraordinarily smart and cruel that today's communist government may not match. This was one reason why Manchu Qing could last so long.

Edited by ahxiang, 12 February 2008 - 10:16 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

What Manchu Emperor Gaozong [Qianlong] said here was that the population in his reign was over dozen folds more than that of the predecessor reign by Yongzheng. The emperor knew better than you, I guess.

The edict explains the huge gap that every learned Chinese had seen for past hundreds of years but a few guys claimed to be either hoax or under-reporting by prior periods or a matter of poll tax vs. population.

Ahxiang, don't make me repeat myself again. The whole point was that the Qing Shi Gao itself is based on an unreliable census. The passage, 朕查上年各省奏報民數，較之康熙年間，計增十餘 clearly said that Qian Long was looking at the reported census from the different provinces, hence the source was unreliable in the first place. What part of that do you not get? The key point is that the census taken by the Qing bureucracy is flawed, hence using the Qing Shi Gao as a source is just using a flawed census. Reiterating Qing Shi Gao over and over does not prove your point, you are just arguing in circles.

The Qing did use excessive propaganda, and the propaganda during Qian long was the fact that the census figure multiplied by tenfolds. Population growth has always been a sign of prosperity in the past, hence Qianlong is using a propaganda to falsely show how the census figure during his reign soared to give out the false illusion of trenmendous prosperity, yet any scholar worth his salt could pick up the intended propaganda, and you fell for it.

As for what the Qing emperor actually thought, an imperial edict in the fiftieth year of Kang Xi clearly noted that alot of the provincial magistrates failed to report the Ren Ding. This was explicitly documented in Qing Tong Dian and goes as follows: "50 年,总计省人丁二千四百十二万一千三百二十四口, 五十一年逾: 朕见各省抚奏编审人丁数目, 并未将加增之数尽行开报. So in fact the emperor does know more than you, as do modern demographic historians who utilize these sources. The unreliablility of the census and how provincial magistrates lied about numbers is noted by numerous scholars and emperors throughout both the Ming and the Qing as I've already shown. Why don't you just give it up and admit your mistake? Your stubborn superstitious belief of the census is getting you no where, since even those who took these census knew they were flawed.

Edited by warhead, 13 February 2008 - 10:58 AM.

[ahxiang]

Ahxiang, don't make me repeat myself again. The whole point was that the Qing Shi Gao itself is based on an unreliable census. The passage, 朕查上年各省奏報民數，較之康熙年間，計增十餘 clearly said that Qian Long was looking at the reported census from the different provinces, hence the source was unreliable in the first place. What part of that do you not get? The key point is that the census taken by the Qing bureucracy is flawed, hence using the Qing Shi Gao as a source is just using a flawed census. Reiterating Qing Shi Gao over and over does not prove your point, you are just arguing in circles.

The Qing did use excessive propaganda, and the propaganda during Qian long was the fact that the census figure multiplied by tenfolds. Population growth has always been a sign of prosperity in the past, hence Qianlong is using a propaganda to falsely show how the census figure during his reign soared to give out the false illusion of trenmendous prosperity, yet any scholar worth his salt could pick up the intended propaganda, and you fell for it.

As for what the Qing emperor actually thought, an imperial edict in the fiftieth year of Kang Xi clearly noted that alot of the provincial magistrates failed to report the Ren Ding. This was explicitly documented in Qing Tong Dian and goes as follows: "50 年,总计省人丁二千四百十二万一千三百二十四口, 五十一年逾: 朕见各省抚奏编审人丁数目, 并未将加增之数尽行开报. So in fact the emperor does know more than you, as do modern demographic historians who utilize these sources. The unreliablility of the census and how provincial magistrates lied about numbers is noted by numerous scholars and emperors throughout both the Ming and the Qing as I've already shown. Why don't you just give it up and admit your mistake? Your stubborn superstitious belief of the census is getting you no where, since even those who took these census knew they were flawed.

The Manchu population was strict with household registration, travel permit, etc, that nobody could have slipped through their monitoring net. Don't you see the census was used to be handled by so-called PATROL DEPARTMENT, and then merged into the Civil Admin Ministry.

Should Emperor Qianlong saw a number that deviated from a previous number by so much without adequate explanation, I am pretty sure a lot of heads needed to roll.

The amswer to the gap still lied in the gigantic territorial expansion, as well as the massive productivity gain due to the no-tax-on-incremental-male policy from Emperor Kangxi era.

You had plain and simple denied that Manchu records ever included the people in Chinese Turkestan in some response above. The QING SHI GAO records clearly stated that the hunters in TUVA and other Soviet Republics of Central Asia were required to report as Gross Number of Households versus innerland Chinese who were to be itemized by DING [poll tax -adult males] and KOU [rest of population]. And you had plain and simple denied that Chinese Turkestan was not counted till Emperor Qianlong's crackdown on rebellion in 17**. The QING SHI GAO again stated that Chinese Turkestan began to have military farming in the late 16**.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

The Manchu population was strict with household registration, travel permit, etc, that nobody could have slipped through their monitoring net. Don't you see the census was used to be handled by so-called PATROL DEPARTMENT, and then merged into the Civil Admin Ministry.

Pardon me for not following your logic, if there is any logic involved at all, but his claim is completely unfounded. If you don't have any primary sources to back up this assertion, you are just inventing cases to fit your pre-determined conclusion.
Your stubborn insistence on the tightness of Manchu grasp of the whole country is due to your lack of understanding on how ancient bureaucracies functioned. Unlike modern regimes such as the PRC, ancient bureaucracies are deficient and unable to maintain strict supervision over the country sides. Part of this has to do with the lack of communication, surveillance and transportation technologies. No regime in ancient China had the ability to supervise every part of the country, hence the phrase 天高皇帝远(the sky is high and the emperor is far away) was born because the bureaucracy and the technology was simply too limited. However powerful the Qing emperors were compared to previous dynasties, they still had to govern the empire through the traditional bureaucratic system, which means that tax evasion, migration, and underreporting are rampant and the census was flawed.

You also don't seem to understand why Kang Xi implemented the new tax reform, it wasn't due to benevolence and its strange why your anti-Manchu mentality haven't grasped that already. The reason that Kang Xi did not try to increase tax as Ren ding grew was because he couldn't. The increased population were not reported, and was clearly documented in the Qing Tong Dian. Kang Xi knew this and in order to get a more accurate version of the census, he just passed an edict to confirm the de facto situation under the guise of a benevolent policy.

Should Emperor Qianlong saw a number that deviated from a previous number by so much without adequate explanation, I am pretty sure a lot of heads needed to roll.

Why should he execute if it benefits his propaganda? You can't blame the magistrates for something even they have no control over. Population census is a much more complex thing than you are understanding them. There were lots of census evaders who travel from prefecture to prefecture, or even from province to province to avoid registration and taxation. Its not just a Qing dynasty phenomenon. The Tang emperors noted this, and an imperial edict during the Kai Yuan warned the population not to do so or they would be severely punished. Little good that did, and the population continued to avoid census registration, to the extent that Du Yu noted in his Tong Dian that about 1/3 of the entire population were hiding from the census.
So the under report is due both to different magistrate's dishonesty, as well as the people's own attempt at avoiding taxation. In another word, it was beyond the ability of the bureaucracy to conduct an accurate census. That itself is an explanation which every emperor knows while you don't.

The amswer to the gap still lied in the gigantic territorial expansion, as well as the massive productivity gain due to the no-tax-on-incremental-male policy from Emperor Kangxi era.

I'm sorry, but I believe this nonsense has already been debunked on the previous page. Why are you reiterating this rubbish? These territorial expansion happened in 1757, decades after the population multiplied and there were no massive migration until the 19th century. So stop wasting my time refuting this ungrounded BS because you did not do your homework.

You had plain and simple denied that Manchu records ever included the people in Chinese Turkestan in some response above. The QING SHI GAO records clearly stated that the hunters in TUVA and other Soviet Republics of Central Asia were required to report as Gross Number of Households versus innerland Chinese who were to be itemized by DING [poll tax -adult males] and KOU [rest of population]. And you had plain and simple denied that Chinese Turkestan was not counted till Emperor Qianlong's crackdown on rebellion in 17**.

Sometimes, I wonder whether you have a firm grasp of English. Open your eyes wide and read again. If you don't understand, look it up in a dictionary. This is what I wrote:

"
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."

My response above was that the population census of Xinjiang was recorded as 557,925, so not only was I not denying the Manchu records, I'm the one who brought it up in the first place. I did not "plain and simple denied that Chinese Turkestan was not counted till Emperor Qianlong's crackdown on rebellion in 17**." In fact, where did you even invent that BS from, because no where did I write anything about Turkestan census during Qianlong. What I said was that massive Chinese migration couldn't have possibly entered Turkestan because the Qing didn't even conquer the place until 1757, and even then, the population of Xin jiang was still little more than a million. It could hardly account for the tens of millions of population increase in the Qing census.

The fact of the matter is, your theory for Chinese population increase as a result of conquest is completely wrong because you don't have a firm understanding of Qing conquest or Qing imperialist policies in Xinjiang. And distorting my words to hide your lies and incompetence isn't helping you at all, it only reveals your smallness in refusing to admit your mistake.

The QING SHI GAO again stated that Chinese Turkestan began to have military farming in the late 16**.

Point out the passage to me right now so I may examine its content.

Edited by warhead, 13 February 2008 - 02:34 PM.

[ahxiang]

Since you claim to be a Manchu descendant, better spend some time reading your history before showing off things you do not know.

Everything I read here pointed to Kangxi's no-tax-on-newborn-male as the ultimate reason behind the population explosion. The secondary reason would be territorial expansion and continuous roundup of refugees on the mountains of Jiangxi-Zhejiang-Fujian, i.e., the HAKKAs, as well as the island people after of course abandoning the cruel policy of "no living soul within 30 li distance of the coast". At one time, Manchu claimed they located 20,000 people on islands near Shandong, and then said the islands off other provinces must be checked out, too.



EMPEROR YONGZHENG's ORDER OF STRICT POPULATION CONTROL

Special attention was put on boys above age 16. No single such boy should be ommitted.

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。」

PATROL DEPARTMENT CONVERTED TO CIVIL ADMIN DEPARTMENT

Manchu "patrol department" used to be the organ in charge of population control.

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。


100,000 ILLEGAL EMIGRE TO MANCHURIA FROM SHANDONG in AD 1711

100,000 made stealthy migration to Manchuria in AD 1711. Imagine what kind of pressure the population growth from the no-tax-on-newborn-male had created on Shandong Peninsula.

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。


MILITARY FARMING IN CHINESE TURKESTAN - KANGXI REIGN

It started at the Emperor Kangxi reign, after AD 1662. Emperor Qianlong, in 18th century, merely went in to put down a rebellion.

新疆屯田，始康熙之季，察罕諾爾地駐兵，因於蘇勒厄圖、喀喇烏蘇諸處創屯種，
令土默特兵千，每旗一台吉，遣監視大臣一人。而哈密、巴裡坤、都爾博勒及西吉木、
布隆吉爾等，鹹議立屯。命傅爾丹、蘇爾德、梁世勳分職其事。吐魯番亦駐屯兵。雍正
三年，命喀爾喀駐兵墾鄂爾昆田。

乾隆初，定一兵墾二十五畝，凡兵二千五百，種地三之，駐守二之。時回部如辟展
各要沖，多設屯，厚兵力。逮准噶爾平，版圖益廓，邊防與屯政相維。七年，川陝總督
尹繼善請以蔡把什湖地租與回民，假貲耕種，事得允行。二十年，以伊犁西境喀爾喀東
陲多閒壤，悉遣滿、漢、蒙兵數千開屯，視蒙古授田例。又設額爾齊斯屯田，巴裡坤亦
置屯，遣甘、涼、肅屯地兵五百往種，秋收後入城，三年更迭，塔勒納沁開田三千餘畝。

二十三年，用雅爾哈善、永貴等言，於辟展、魯克察克、吐魯番、烏魯木齊，托克
遜、哈喇沙爾規度官墾。是時饋饟猶亟，誡巴裡坤至伊犁循序增屯，其原挾家者，俾安
業如內地村莊。初人種十五畝，令益五畝。置新舊屯兵萬七千，出帑三百萬備籽種諸用。
而特納格、昌吉、羅克倫均益兵廣屯。大率烏魯木齊增墾以來，歲穫悉供伊犁餉需。伊
犁墾成，又資接續，更移喀什噶爾等回眾二千五百戶屯阿克蘇。其事則黃廷桂、楊應琚、
兆惠等主之。定章百兵一屯，地畝人二十，分小麥十一、穀七、青稞豌豆各一。然吐魯
番、辟展、魯克察克兵屯外皆兼回屯，而庫車東、哈喇沙爾西，或分佈多倫回人溉種。

二十五年，伊犁屯議起，於河南之海努克立回屯，察罕烏蘇立兵屯。翌年，又於葉
爾羌、喀什噶爾、阿克蘇、烏什等城增回屯，減兵額。時戎事方息，惟□厄塞留兵，餘
齊赴伊犁屯殖，穫粟贏裕，即益屯兵。兵不供屯，則招集流人，分土任業。巴裡坤饒賸
壤，穆壘土沃泉滋，俱募人大開阡陌。蓋舒赫德、阿桂、明瑞等所建為多。三十七年，
陝督文綬以新疆餘地宜推廣募墾，條列五事以聞。

四十一年，令葉爾羌成丁餘回，特畀耕地編戶，凡千五百戶為一所，三千戶為一衛。
初，烏魯木齊屯地，共綠旗兵三千，二千操練，一千屯耕，番休，三歲後令移眷，官予
資裝。及地日廓而兵不贍，率遷甘肅貧民，不靳煩費，赤貧全給，小康半之，歲穰自原
挈家則不給。四十五年，定眷兵分編戶籍，其牛籽、農具、屋價、口糧，皆官措貸，約
升科時，分三年繳納。凡承種新疆熟地，本年升科，新墾三年後升科，而商民承墾新地，
戶三十畝，六年升科。蓋自此楚呼楚、穆壘、瑪納斯、庫爾哈喇烏蘇，屯務駸駸日近矣。

新疆軍屯分數，人穫細糧十五石至十八石，官議敘，兵丁賞一月鹽菜銀，二十五石
倍之，十二石以上，功過半，不及，官議處。兵重責留屯，次年收足予復。烏魯木齊但
穫糧十一石以上即敘賞。塔勒納沁尤磽瘠，賞罰遞降殺之。無鹽菜則給口糧，其阿奇木
伯克等則賞緞匹。顧伊犁額多苦累，福康安嘗以為言。最後將軍長庚請仿烏魯木齊例行，
然部議仍未及減也。向例遣犯得留種新地，哈密各屬截留伊、烏遣犯墾耕，年滿乃各致
其所，罪重勿留。又以不敷農作，僅限斷洋盜而已。後令情輕者改防為眷，用羈縻之。
遣犯穫額兵丁，其敘賞諸事從原例。


MANCHU QING's STRICT BAOJIA - COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH POLICIES

Even Chinese communists could not beat the Manchu.

We were pure lucky that the imperialists, since Opium War 1839-1940, impacted the Manchu rule so much that it finally shook loose. Otherwise, you and me and everybody will still carry pigtails today.

To leave a place and to enter a place, Manchu required a permit. Worse, you need to tell manchu officials where you were going and where you were coming from. What kind of POLICE STATE it was !!!!!!

Apparently, Manchu knew more than cutting your hair. They checked out your ancestral place before they gave you a permit.After verifying the origin of the newcomers would they be granted a permit to stay in Sichuan to farm the land.
Manchu apparently used the same THREE-LETTER-REFERRAL policy as communists, i.e., for those who went to the VOID Sichuan Province, they had to tell the Sichuan officials where they came from so that they double-checked with Manchu officials in the original place.

Jesus, where was the claim that you were away from the emperor's palm in the remote place where the skies were high?




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
查核。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。

Edited by ahxiang, 13 February 2008 - 10:53 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Since you claim to be a Manchu descendant, better spend some time reading your history before showing off things you do not know.

First off, you might want to stop emphasizing on my ancestry, it is unprofessional and has no relevance to the topic, not to mention you know nothing about the person behind this screen name's true identity.

Secondly, you should apply this statement on to yourself because so far, the only person who exhibited an utter ignorance about the subject(and a tendency to waste time I might add) is you. what you've just said below not only does not support your already debunked comments, it is just begging the question.

Everything I read here pointed to Kangxi's no-tax-on-newborn-male as the ultimate reason behind the population explosion.

It is the ultimate reason for the explosion of the population census on paper. How many times do I have to repeat that for it to sink in?

The secondary reason would be territorial expansion

This BS has already been debunked three times in this thread. Even a five year old would have caught the pattern. Apparently you didn't. I'm not going to waste my time again. Move on.

PS: You have yet to shown me the source on the military farming in the late 1600s. I'm still waiting.

and continuous roundup of refugees on the mountains of Jiangxi-Zhejiang-Fujian, i.e., the HAKKAs, as well as the island people after of course abandoning the cruel policy of "no living soul within 30 li distance of the coast". At one time, Manchu claimed they located 20,000 people on islands near Shandong, and then said the islands off other provinces must be checked out, too.

Wrong again, but why doesn't that surprise me? I see that when your ignorant comment about the expansion in Xinjiang was revealed as nonsense, you tried to use Jiangxi-Zhejiang-Fujian as a escape route. Fallacy of shifting grounds. Yet even here you are only further revealing your utter lack of knowledge with respect to demographic history.
Jiang Xi only had a registered ren ding number of 1,968,299 in 1661, zhejiang had 2,720,091, while fujian only had 1,455,808. While in 1820, Jiangxi had a population census of 24,064,268, Zhejiang had 27,422,380, and Fujian had 16,759,563. The census in all three territories multiplied by over ten folds just like the rest of the empire, hence your theory on the rounding up of people in these territories to increase population is completely unfounded. Furthermore relocating population does not increase the population, such a theory only further reveals your ignorance on demographics.

EMPEROR YONGZHENG's ORDER OF STRICT POPULATION CONTROL

Special attention was put on boys above age 16. No single such boy should be ommitted.

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。」

First, the 10.6 million figure you gave for the early Qing was only that of the Ren Ding人丁(males between 16-59), while the 60 million you gave for the Ming was the entire population人口. That in itself is already a flawed comparison. And by that fact alone, you have already lost the argument.
Using Yongzheng's edict does not strengthen your arguments at all, if anything it weakens it since we are talking about the early Qing not the middle Qing, Yongzheng's edict has no affect. Secondly, the very fact that Yong Zheng emphasize that any omission should be punished clearly meant that census omission was already a serious issue prior to him. And Kang Xi's edict in his 20th year also clearly noted that. Just give it up. You are wrong, and your own sources only further proves your mistake.

Edited by warhead, 14 February 2008 - 04:32 PM.

[ahxiang]

Why don't you continue on to rebut me on the Chineset Turkestan military farming that began in Kangxi's reign in 17th century, rather your plain and simple error in claiming it was Qianlong who conquered it?

Don't you know the BABY-BOOMER generation theory after the WWII?

Kangxi's no-tax-on-newborn-baby policy had played the role of magnifying the BABY-BOOMER effect far beyond anybody's ken?

And, the POLL-TAX scam had been repeatedly proven to be bankrupt. The regression model you cited was ludicrous in claiming that Manchu Qing, being of one social structure, had to follow 0.7% growth rate.

Why can't you read the comment in QING SHI GAO next to the GROSS numbers, i.e., the incremental new DING [adult male]? Manchus, from day one, itemized DING+KOU=HU.

1578年（明万历六年） 6069万人
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：
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
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。 19,203,233
1684年（康熙二十三年） 2O34万人
1699年（康熙三十八年） 2041万人
康熙三十九年(1700年)　　 2010万
康熙五十年，二千四百六十二萬一千三百二十四口。 24,621,324 AD 1711
1719年（康熙五十八年） 2502万人
康熙六十年，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。 29,148,359 467,850
1724年（雍正二年） 2611万人
1726年（雍正四年） 2639万人
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。 26,417,932 937,530
1734年（雍正十二年） 2735万人


Simple example,

1734 26.42 million, with extra 937530 males.

You really believe Spence and the sort are the "GOD", as some poster's screen name adopted? Better have faith in the hundreds of thousands of scholars in Chinese history. They saw through the numbers.

Edited by ahxiang, 14 February 2008 - 11:37 AM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Why don't you continue on to rebut me on the Chineset Turkestan military farming that began in Kangxi's reign in 17th century, rather your plain and simple error in claiming it was Qianlong who conquered it?

I did rebut you, and I crushed you. Your claim that military farming began in the late 17th century was completely wrong, and instead of backing up your lie with a source as I asked you to do, you even have the stupidity and audacity to tell me I made a "plain and simple error". Thats just pathetic. Even a beginner of Qing history knows that it was Qian long who conquered Xinjiang, not Kang Xi(Kangxi only took Hami, and that was in the early 18th century, not late 17th in his Tibetan campaign.) Before I had at least a little respect for you, now I know you are just a scoundrel with nothing better to do other than trolling and promoting worthless propaganda. Hence forth I'm only going to treat you like a 3 year old.

Don't you know the BABY-BOOMER generation theory after the WWII?

Kangxi's no-tax-on-newborn-baby policy had played the role of magnifying the BABY-BOOMER effect far beyond anybody's ken?

And, the POLL-TAX scam had been repeatedly proven to be bankrupt. The regression model you cited was ludicrous in claiming that Manchu Qing, being of one social structure, had to follow 0.7% growth rate.

I repeat again. These growth rates were roughly even because they're called E-S-T-I-M-A-T-E-S.

Why can't you read the comment in QING SHI GAO next to the GROSS numbers, i.e., the incremental new DING [adult male]? Manchus, from day one, itemized DING+KOU=HU.

1578年（明万历六年） 6069万人
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：
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
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。 19,203,233
1684年（康熙二十三年） 2O34万人
1699年（康熙三十八年） 2041万人
康熙三十九年(1700年)　　 2010万
康熙五十年，二千四百六十二萬一千三百二十四口。 24,621,324 AD 1711
1719年（康熙五十八年） 2502万人
康熙六十年，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。 29,148,359 467,850
1724年（雍正二年） 2611万人
1726年（雍正四年） 2639万人
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。 26,417,932 937,530
1734年（雍正十二年） 2735万人


Simple example,

1734 26.42 million, with extra 937530 males.

I don't take the Qing Shi Gao because once again: The early census only recorded Ren Ding figures, and there were lots of hidden households

You really believe Spence and the sort are the "GOD", as some poster's screen name adopted? Better have faith in the hundreds of thousands of scholars in Chinese history. They saw through the numbers

Are you really stupid or can't you read English? I've already answered this gibberish. I'm going to repeated post them until they sink in, even if your head is made of cement. because while others might lack the dedication, I don't.

"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."

Get it? If not, I'll just post it again.

Edited by warhead, 14 February 2008 - 03:29 PM.

[ahxiang]

I did rebut you, and I crushed you. Your claim that military farming began in the late 17th century was completely wrong, and instead of backing up your lie with a source as I asked you to do, you even have the stupidity and audacity to tell me I made a "plain and simple error". Thats just pathetic. Even a beginner of Qing history knows that it was Qian long who conquered Xinjiang, not Kang Xi(Kangxi only took Hami, and that was in the early 18th century, not late 17th in his Tibetan campaign.) Before I had at least a little respect for you, now I know you are just a scoundrel with nothing better to do other than trolling and promoting worthless propaganda. Hence forth I'm only going to treat you like a 3 year old.




I repeat again. These growth rates were roughly even because they're called E-S-T-I-M-A-T-E-S.




I don't take the Qing Shi Gao because once again: The early census only recorded Ren Ding figures, and there were lots of hidden households



Are you really stupid or can't you read English? I've already answered this gibberish. I'm going to repeated post them until they sink in, even if your head is made of cement. because while others might lack the dedication, I don't.

"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."

Get it? If not, I'll just post it again.

You are a hopeless guy with a mouthfull of sh*t. Count your obscene words you used above.

Don't you read Qianlong's comment on the ONE DOZEN human population growth below?

Nowhere can anybody see Emperor Qianlong was so ignorant as to the statistical collection had changed to cause the one dozen population growth?


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？」

Military farming at Chinese Turkestan started at Emperor Kangxi's reign. It said clearly in QINGS SHI GAO below. More than that, Kangxi extended the control far into the west, including most of today's USSR TUVA Republic.

新疆屯田，始康熙之季，察罕諾爾地駐兵，因於蘇勒厄圖、喀喇烏蘇諸處創屯種，
令土默特兵千，每旗一台吉，遣監視大臣一人。而哈密、巴裡坤、都爾博勒及西吉木、
布隆吉爾等，鹹議立屯。命傅爾丹、蘇爾德、梁世勳分職其事。吐魯番亦駐屯兵。雍正
三年，命喀爾喀駐兵墾鄂爾昆田。

The poll-tax scam is bankrupt. You don't have to make yourself a fool.

Even if it was poll [which it was not], you still could not escape from the fact that human population had been decimated in Ming-Qing transitionary period. The Ming book, 蓬窗日录, you cited was of obscure origin. No need to treat that seriously.

How do you imagine a cruel horde of Manchu murderers, bent on cutting Chinese hair or head, allow anyone to escape?

Even if you totally disregarded Ming Dynasty figure of 60.69 million, you can't ascribe the numbers of 10.63 Million, 15.41 Million, 19 Million below to any statistical collection difference.

The Manchu, like Mongols, are mass muderers. The more apologetic you want to make yourself, the more you make yourself a fool.

1578年（明万历六年） 6069万人

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：
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
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。 19,203,233
1684年（康熙二十三年） 2O34万人
1699年（康熙三十八年） 2041万人
康熙三十九年(1700年)　　 2010万

Edited by ahxiang, 14 February 2008 - 10:34 PM.

[mariusj]

Don't you know the BABY-BOOMER generation theory after the WWII?

Kangxi's no-tax-on-newborn-baby policy had played the role of magnifying the BABY-BOOMER effect far beyond anybody's ken?

And, the POLL-TAX scam had been repeatedly proven to be bankrupt. The regression model you cited was ludicrous in claiming that Manchu Qing, being of one social structure, had to follow 0.7% growth rate.
.....
You really believe Spence and the sort are the "GOD", as some poster's screen name adopted? Better have faith in the hundreds of thousands of scholars in Chinese history. They saw through the numbers.

The baby-boomer is an explosion because soldiers come home and have sex.

Now what does that have to do with Kangxi's policy?

No tax on new born baby doesn't imply people will have more sex, recall that it is not the tax that prevents population from growing, but rather food. [If you ever did math near calculus, you should recall everyone's favorite example in something called 'Doom's day, which it consider that without food restriction, human population/rabbit population/etc etc/ will overrun the world.]

I see no regression whatsoever. You both used a lot of data. Lets not confuse ourselves.

Hundreds of thousands aye.

Even Chinese communists could not beat the Manchu.

We were pure lucky that the imperialists, since Opium War 1839-1940, impacted the Manchu rule so much that it finally shook loose. Otherwise, you and me and everybody will still carry pigtails today.

To leave a place and to enter a place, Manchu required a permit. Worse, you need to tell manchu officials where you were going and where you were coming from. What kind of POLICE STATE it was !!!!!!

Now, I think you meant 1840. However, Chinese did not lose faith because of Opium War, but a series of other factors; in fact, Opium wasn't even one of the big things that affected Manchu rule, compare to Sino-Japanese War, Taiping rebellion, Boxer Rebellion. [It doesn't mean it is not big, but not as big, IMO]

As for leaving and traveling, you should study world economics a bit. That is actually how people live back then. People's movement are restricted, which is why you have different classes, and which is way lords/ladies can levy as much taxes as they want. Same everywhere. Europe change after Napoleon; you then have Enlighten Monarchs whose treatment for people are much better then previous ones, simply now there are much less restriction and they HAVE to treat their people better.
China is in fact, better, since you COULD move.

So, movement is restricted everywhere. [Else, who would want to be peasants?]

Jesus, where was the claim that you were away from the emperor's palm in the remote place where the skies were high?

That is an ancient saying in China. Like, 'don't take a wood nickel' or 'no free lunch'

Even if it was poll [which it was not], you still could not escape from the fact that human population had been decimated in Ming-Qing transitionary period. The Ming book, 蓬窗日录, you cited was of obscure origin. No need to treat that seriously.
How do you imagine a cruel horde of Manchu murderers, bent on cutting Chinese hair or head, allow anyone to escape?

Even if you totally disregarded Ming Dynasty figure of 60.69 million, you can't ascribe the numbers of 10.63 Million, 15.41 Million, 19 Million below to any statistical collection difference.

Jesus. They are fighting a war, and they are conquerers. In today's time, they would face the hangman, back then, they are just bloodthirsty barbarians.

But, they are not murders. Kill in a war, in a pillage, in a massacre, is different from kill in cold blood through intentions.
The manchus were not after any specific man. They are after money, slave, woman, and land.

Stop using the word statistical, that doesn't exist a hundred years ago, certain not four hundred years ago. Anything should be considered censor data. DATA.

And besides, when wars are fought, it mostly wasn't soldiers putting a spear/sword/etc in you that killed you, its lots of other stuff, disease [doctors are in the army, or you lost your money/home/etc, or you are dislocated], famine [males are drafted], fires, bandits, etc etc.

Edited by mariusj, 14 February 2008 - 11:54 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

You are a hopeless guy with a mouthfull of sh*t. Count your obscene words you used above.

these obscene words are perfectly suitable for a sore loser like you. You are nothing but a fraud with an axe to grind, an incompetent historian, a liar, and worst of all an idiot that likes to waste other people's time because you don't know jackshit about history or demographics, and refuse to admit your mistake. Yet its ironic that you even have the stupidity to call me hopeless, when a number of us here feels like we are arguing with a cement wall rather than a human being. Act like a 3 year old, and you will be treated like one.

Don't you read Qianlong's comment on the ONE DOZEN human population growth below?

And didn't you read KangXi's edict that I've shown you which explicitly, word by word, mentioned that there are lots of hidden households? Consider Kang Xi lived before Qianlong, its obvious that he knew more about his own time than his grandson. Yet you, once again, been selective, chose what fits your propaganda, instead of what fits fact.

Nowhere can anybody see Emperor Qianlong was so ignorant as to the statistical collection had changed to cause the one dozen population growth?

"
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？」

I repeat for the third time: "The whole point was that the Qing Shi Gao itself is based on an unreliable census. The passage, 朕查上年各省奏報民數，較之康熙年間，計增十餘 clearly said that Qian Long was looking at the reported census from the different provinces, hence the source was unreliable in the first place. What part of that do you not get? The key point is that the census taken by the Qing bureucracy is flawed, hence using the Qing Shi Gao as a source is just using a flawed census. Reiterating Qing Shi Gao over and over does not prove your point, you are just arguing in circles.

The Qing did use excessive propaganda, and the propaganda during Qian long was the fact that the census figure multiplied by tenfolds. Population growth has always been a sign of prosperity in the past, hence Qianlong is using a propaganda to falsely show how the census figure during his reign soared to give out the false illusion of trenmendous prosperity, yet any scholar worth his salt could pick up the intended propaganda, and you fell for it."

Military farming at Chinese Turkestan started at Emperor Kangxi's reign. It said clearly in QINGS SHI GAO below. More than that, Kangxi extended the control far into the west, including most of today's USSR TUVA Republic.

新疆屯田，始康熙之季，察罕諾爾地駐兵，因於蘇勒厄圖、喀喇烏蘇諸處創屯種，
令土默特兵千，每旗一台吉，遣監視大臣一人。而哈密、巴裡坤、都爾博勒及西吉木、
布隆吉爾等，鹹議立屯。命傅爾丹、蘇爾德、梁世勳分職其事。吐魯番亦駐屯兵。雍正
三年，命喀爾喀駐兵墾鄂爾昆田。

I'm sorry, but it seems like your geography skills are poor as well. 察罕諾爾 is not in Xinjiang, its in inner Mongolia, which was already subdued by Huang Tai Ji before he entered China. As I've said before, the only region which Kang Xi occupied in Xinjiang was the Hami region, and that was done in 1720, not in the 17th century as you incorrectly claimed. Tannu Tuva is not in Xinjiang, its northwest of modern Mongolia. The region only has around 64,000 sq mile of territory and less than 100,000 people.
It was Qianlong who conquered the major part of xinjiang, not Kangxi. And these military farmings as Qing Shi Gao itself said, only has a few thousand soldiers, it is hardly the reason for a massive population explosion of tens to hundreds of millions. Just use your common sense, I'm not asking for much.

The poll-tax scam is bankrupt. You don't have to make yourself a fool.

Even if it was poll [which it was not], you still could not escape from the fact that human population had been decimated in Ming-Qing transitionary period. The Ming book, 蓬窗日录, you cited was of obscure origin. No need to treat that seriously.

No, its not from an obscure origin, its from a well known court scholar who had access to the archives. 蓬窗日录 is not a "wild history" 野史, it belongs to the category of miscellaneous records. 杂记类. In fact, Chen Quan was only one of the few Ming scholars of the time to note this. Another person was the scholar Wang Shi Zhen, who wrote in his long report 弇州史料后集, on the issue of population, which said "国家户口登耗有绝不可信者...有司之造册与户科户部之稽查皆儿戏耳"(the national census report can in no way be trusted...the board of registration's inspections are all a child's play.) the presence of census inaccuracy was not just a suspicion from some revisionist individual, its a common knowledge among just about all of the Ming scholars of the time. Once again, stop talking about books you know nothing about.

And as I've said before, even emperor Kang Xi said there were lots of hidden household in the Qing Tong Dian. Its a recorded fact. Which means that your worshiped classical sources themselves said so. The only person who is making himself a fool is you, and you are continuously doing so with your every post.

how do you imagine a cruel horde of Manchu murderers, bent on cutting Chinese hair or head, allow anyone to escape?

Unlike you, I don't irrationally imagine something just because I have a hunch. And unlike you I'm not biased with an ethnic bashing motive in studying history.

The Manchu, like Mongols, are mass muderers. The more apologetic you want to make yourself, the more you make yourself a fool.

I'm not been apologetic, get it through your thick head. I never denied any massacre, I'm only correcting your mistakes about 76% of the population been slaughtered. Because the census you've shown below has transparent problems.

Even if you totally disregarded Ming Dynasty figure of 60.69 million, you can't ascribe the numbers of 10.63 Million, 15.41 Million, 19 Million below to any statistical collection difference.

The Manchu, like Mongols, are mass muderers. The more apologetic you want to make yourself, the more you make yourself a fool.

1578年（明万历六年） 6069万人

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：
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
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。 19,203,233
1684年（康熙二十三年） 2O34万人
1699年（康熙三十八年） 2041万人
康熙三十九年(1700年)　　 2010万

For the third time:

"The figures(meaning all of the following: 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。 19,203,233
1684年（康熙二十三年） 2O34万人
1699年（康熙三十八年） 2041万人
康熙三十九年(1700年)　　 2010万) of the early Qing only record the Ren Ding人丁(males between 16-59), while the 60 million you gave for the Ming was the entire population人口. That in itself is already a flawed comparison. And by that fact alone, you have already lost the argument."

Edited by warhead, 15 February 2008 - 01:22 AM.

[wlee15]

Ahxiang making personal insults are completely inappropriate, and for that I'm raising your warning level.