already hosted more than 117 , 600 “old”Han, some of whom were
probably the cultivators who clashed with local Kharachin Mongols
during Sun Jiagan’s tenure a decade earlier. While taking measures to
keep both populations apart, including adopting Sun’s old proposal to
appoint an official to oversee interethnic affairs, the state acquiesced
to the incursion.^138
Jungfoboo’s and similar Inner accounts reflect some of the same con-
cerns expressed by the throne over the“contamination”of Manchus by
Han customs noted in Chapter 2. Mongolian identity, however was
threatened by unanticipated Han migration beyond the passes while
Manchu identity was threatened by deliberate Manchu“migration”to
China proper. The Mongolian transformation was, moreover, made pos-
sible in large measure not by preexisting relations in China proper, but by
a space amenable to Han urban-agrarian reconstitution that occluded or
entirely precluded pastoral relationships. The Inner Mongolian ecotone
proved too adaptable to act as the solid ground of imperial pastoralism
and its banner Mongol identity. The environmental relations constituting
other spaces of areas such as southwestern Yunnan, however, were far
less congenial for the construction of an imperial borderland.
Notes1 Na Risen,“Guanyu Taipusi Qi shengtai jianshe,” 291 – 93.
2 See, for example, Di Cosmo,“Ancient Inner Asian Nomads,” 1092 – 1126.
3 Elverskog,Our Great Qing, 21. Note also evidence from Manchu sources that
the Qing court modified the league system; Oyunbilig,“Guanyu Qingdai nei
zha-sa-ke Menggu meng,” 62 – 75.
4 Banner Mongols were also called the“Unified Mongol Tribes of the Marches”
(waifan Menggu tongbu),Jiaqing chongxiu yitongzhi, 33 : 26 , 449. Eighteenth-
century Manchu and nineteenth-century Chinese sources employed the term
“innerjasag”(Ma:dorgi jasak se) or paired the terms“inner and outerjasag”
(nei zha-sa-keandwai zha-sa-ke); MWLF, QL 2 / 11 / 3 [ 03 - 0171 - 0360 - 009 ];
Huidian shili(GX), 10 : 980 b, 989 a, 1173 a; Zhang Mu,Menggu youmu ji, 1 , 141.
5 Fu Ge,“Jiubai,” 37.
6 Zhao Zhiheng, ed.,Neimenggu tongshi, disan juan, 3 : 7.
7 For Lingdan Khan, see, Yi-du-he-xi-ge et al.,Menggu minzu tongshi, disi juan,
4 : 5 – 28 ; Li,“State-building Before 1644 ,” 55 – 56. For an account of various
Mongol revolts, see Zhao Zhiheng, ed.,Neimenggu tongshi, disan juan, 3 : 8 – 20.
8 I have mainly relied on Zhao Yuntian,Qingdai zhili bianchui de shuniufor the
Lifanyuan. Other important studies include Zhao Yuntian,“Qing zhi Mingguo
guanli Menggu,” 208 – 11 ; Ning,“The Li-fan Yuan in the Early Ch’ing Dyn-
asty”; Legrand,L’administration dans la domination Sino-Mandchoue en
Mongolie Qala-a.