the southwest 269trappings of rhinoceros hide. Thereafter, missions did not come regu-
larly (Wen-hsien t’ung-k’ao 329:72a).
In the 4th month (May/June) of 1116, the Sung “ordered the Ta-
li State to pay tribute”, i.e. it expressed the wish to resume relations
and trade. That year, envoys arrived (Sung shih 488:19a;Sung hui-yao,
chüan 10,353).
On Jan.23, 1117, envoys from the Ta-li State offered 380 horses,
musk, cow bezoar, fine mats, and gems. They wished to pay homage
to the image of Confucius, which was arranged (Sung shih 21:7b; 488:
19b;Sung hui-yao, chüan 10,353; Wen-hsien t’ung-k’ao 329:72a).
On May 6, 1117, envoys of the Ta-li State offered gifts. On June 1,
the envoys were received in audience by Emperor Hui-tsung. That day,
the ruler of the Ta-li State, Tuan Ho-yü,^55 was by the Sung appointed
Imperial Household Grandee of the Golden Seal and Purple Ribbon,
Military Commissioner of the non-existant Yün-nan Area Command,
Acting Minister of Works, and Supreme Pillar of State, and recognized
as king of the Ta-li State. On June 10, the envoys took leave (Sung shih
21:7b;Sung hui-yao, chüan 10,353; Wen-hsien t’ung-k’ao 329:72a).
On Nov.12, 1133, local officials reported to the Southern Sung
court that the Ta-li State wished to offer gifts and sell horses. This
was repeated in 1136. Both offers were rejected (Sung shih 488:19b-20a;
Sung hui-yao, chüan 10,353; Wen-hsien t’ung-k’ao 329:72a). Henceforth,
the Southern Sung and Nan-chao simply ignored each other. In 1254,
Nan-chao was conquered by the Mongols.
Nan-chao was not only an independent state, but its rulers called
themselves emperors from 751 to 794 and permanently from 859.
Yet, the accounts of the Chinese dynastic historians ignore Nan-chao’s
sovereign statehood and provide striking examples of sinocentric arro-
gance, untruthful diplomatic reporting, and false claims of Chinese
suzerainity. They fail to understand that Nan-chao first allied itself
with Tibet and later intermittently with China for the very purpose
of guarding its independence, and that it never submitted to either
of them.
Tzu-chih t’ung-chien p.7552 gives the following account of the behav-
iour of the Chinese envoy Ts’ui Tso-shih to Nan-chao in 793: At this
time, there were several hundred Tibetan envoys in the capital. Yi-
mou-hsün did not wish them to know that he was negotiating with the
(^55) Or Tuan Cheng-yen. His dynasty had ruled since 937.