On the Manchu Source Jun gar-i ba-be necihiyeme toktobuha bodogon-i bithe (Strategy Book for the Pacification of the Dzüüngarian Territory) (1770)

1.1 Content and Versions of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe

The Manchu source Jun gar-i ba-be necihiyeme toktobuha bodogon-i bithe was as said published in 1770 and in Chinese block print in 1772 before being incorporated into the renowned 四庫全書 in 1781. Also known as (欽定) 平定準噶爾方略 (Qin ding) Ping ding zhun ga er fang lüe (“(Imperially Endorsed) Strategy Book for the Pacification of the Dzüüngarian Territory”) in Chinese, it is a manifestation of political gratitude extended towards the Qing dynasty for their unification of the Dzüüngar Empire and the Muslim city-states under their dominion. The Manchu source comprises four sections:

Man. šutucin, Chin. 序 xu, Mon. orosil, “a Preface”;

Man. julergi banjibun, Chin. 前編 qian bian, Mon. emünedü ǰokiyal, “The First Collection,” containing fifty-four books;

Man. jingkini banjibun, Chin. 正編 zheng bian, Mon. ǰingkini ǰokiyal, “The Main Collection,” consisting of eighty-five books;

Man. sirame banjibun, Chin. 續編 xu bian, Mon. daruγ-a ǰokiyal, “The Supplemental Collection,” encompassing 32 books.^[6]

Furthermore, the Qianlong emperor and chief supervisor Fuheng (1722–1770) included their viewpoints on why they should compile Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe in the preface. According to the Qianlong emperor’s statement, the substantial record was dedicated to forever remembering the merits of the people who sacrificed their lives in the war: “Relying on the collective strength, we were fortunate to achieve success. However, the number of our soldiers who faced the sharp edge of battle was by no means small. Therefore, the compilation of this record is primarily driven by the loyalty and righteous spirits of those who fell. I cannot bear to let their memory fade into oblivion. Thus, I have documented everything, not to boast about territorial expansion or conquest, but to honour them”^[7] (Man. /2v6/ geren-i hūsun-de /2v7/ aktafi jabšan-de gungge mutebucibe mini coohai ursei dacun /3r1/ agūra-de gasihiyabuhangge inu komso akū tuuntu ere bithe-be /3r2/ arahangge cohome tondo jurgangga fayangga-be burubufi ularakū-de /3r3/ isibure-de tebcirakū turgunde gemu yongkiyame arafi ejebuhe /3r4/ umai ba-be feshelehe jecen-be badarambuha jalin waka). On the other hand, the chief supervisor Fuheng declared the aim of revealing the military accomplishments in the Strategy Book: “The military campaign continued for no more than 5 years. The strategy has surpassed expectations and is unprecedented among a hundred kings. Inscriptions are put down among mountains in the distant regions, marking the extent of the realm. Order ministers to open an office for compilation, revealing the military accomplishments in the Strategy Book is proper”^[8] (Man. /2v7/ coohalaha inenggi /3r1/ hono sunja aniya-be baibuhakū /3r2/ dorgi bodogon yargiyan-i tanggū han-ci colgoroko lakcaha /3r3/ jecen-i alin dabagan-de eldengge wehe ilibufi ne /3r4/ hešen-ci casi ba na-be badarambuha-be dahame /3r5/ bithei ambasa-de afabufi kuren neifi bithe banjibume /3r6/ coohai gungge-be /3r7/ bodogon-i bithe-de iletuleburengge giyan) (Figure 1).

Figure 1:

Manchu version of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe (The State Museum in Berlin).

As mentioned in the preface, completing the Manchu version in 1770^[9] took 15 years, starting in 1755.^[10] Subsequently, the Chinese block print was produced in 1772^[11] and then became the Historiography section’s 115th‒117th books and the Politics section’s 357th‒359th books^[12] of the “Complete Book of the Four Storehouses” in 1781.^[13] The main question concerns whether distinctions occur between the Manchu and Chinese versions and between the two Chinese versions. Throughout the comparison, a notable distinction can be observed in the preface regarding the content and quantification of the first, central, and supplementary collections of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe. This additional information, unrecorded in the Manchu 1770 version, emerges with minor compositional alterations at two locations in the Chinese two-block prints. The Chinese 1772 version placed this additional information before the preface and catalogue on three pages and 47 columns,^[14] while the Chinese 1781 version placed it after these sections on three pages and 44 columns (Figure 2).^[15]

Figure 2:

The differences in the preface of the two Chinese block prints.

The first difference is the publication date of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe. The 1781 edition mentioned the Manchu block print date of 1770, while the 1772 version cited the Chinese block print date of 1772. Other issues in the preface of the two Chinese versions are considered mistakes by the author. For instance, the indication that the first collection ended in the seventeenth year [1752] of Qianlong contradicts the detail on the fiftieth page of the fifty-fourth volume of the first collection in the 1772 version, which indicated 乾隆十八年春正月戊寅Qianlong shiba nianchun zhengyue wu yin (“Earth Tiger Day [22] of January of the eighteenth year [1753] of Qianlong”).^[16] Moreover, the supplemental collection in the 1772 Chinese version had 32 volumes on 51 pages^[17] which contradicted information on the total quantity of volume 33 mentioned in the preface. Elsewhere, the Manchu version asserted that there were more than 170 books in the compilation,^[18] while the Chinese versions of 1772 and 1781 stated that there were approximately 170^[19] and 171.^[20] In reality, the total number of books in the compilation, including three collections and a preface, was 172 (Figure 3).

Figure 3:

Chinese version of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe (The Place Museum in Beijing).

Returning to the main concern of whether distinctions occur between the Manchu and Chinese versions, it can be presumed that there are minor differences between the two languages’ structures and lexicology, in part due to the two-year gap in the block-printing allowed to correct (or edit) the Chinese version. The following cases illustrate this:

The modern standardised Chinese character for Altai is 阿勒泰 a le tai. At that time, the accepted form of the Arutai or Alutai () was the Altai ( in Mongolian), which is still the case today. Due to limited access to the additional source, it remains unclear why the Manchu version referenced Arutai instead of Altai, how it can be explained, or if it was the writer’s mistake.

A Manchu expression in the above text, ehe mujilen (“evil intent”), has equal meaning to the Chinese word 祸心 huo xin [id.]; its translation into 雄心 xiongxin (“great ambition”) seems to be based on classic stylistics.

The Manchu designation conotu is derived from the Mongolian loanword cinu-a “wolf,” while the Manchu expression for the wolf is niohe. Chinese 狼居胥山 Langjuxu Mountain is a general term for referring to the northern desert, in particular nomads, since the Han dynasty (119 BCE). Unfortunately, the author couldn’t clarify the location (or usage) of the Manchu term conotu alin by the time of writing due to source limitations. However, it should be noted that there are minor differences in some expressions between the Manchu and Chinese versions of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe; such distinctions in the content require further investigation. As mentioned earlier, the present Manchu source comprises four sections that begin with Man. šutucin, Chin. 序 xu, Mon. Orosil, “a Preface” of four different parts:

1. Man. Han-i araha jun gar-i ba be necihiyeme toktobuha bodogon-i bithei šutucin, “A Foreword Written by the Emperor of Strategy Book for the Pacification of the Dzüüngarian Territory”; Chin. 平定準噶爾方畧序 pingding zhungaer fanglüe xu; Mon. qaγan-u bicigsen ǰegün γar-un γaǰar-i töbsidken toγataniγuluγsan bodulγ-a-yin bicig-ün orosil

2. Man. gingguleme ibebuhe jun gar-i ba be necihiyeme toktobuha bodogon-i bithei iletuleme wesimbure bithe, “A Memorial Respectfully Presented to the Emperor of Strategy Book for the Pacification of the Dzüüngarian Territory”; Chin. 恭進平定準噶爾方畧表 gong jin pingding zhungaer fanglüe biao; Mong. kiciyenggüyilen dabsiγulaγsan ǰegün γar-un γaǰar-i töbsidken toγataniγuluγsan bodulγ-a-yin bicig-ün ilerkeyilen ayiladqaqu bicig

3. Man. jun gar-i ba be necihiyeme toktobuha bodogon-i bithei hacin-i ton, “A Catalogue of Strategy Book for the Pacification of the Dzüüngarian Territory”; Chin. 平定準噶爾方略目錄 (in the 1772 version while 總目 zong mu (“a general catalogue”) features in the 1781 version); pingding zhungaer fanglüe mu lu; Mong. ǰegün γar-un γaǰar-i töbsidken toγataniγuluγsan bodulγ-a-yin bicig-ün ǰüil-ün toγ-a

4. Man. jun gar-i ba be necihiyeme toktobuha bodogon-i bithei ujui debtelin, “A Head Book of Strategy Book for the Pacification of the Dzüüngarian Territory”; Chin. 平定準噶爾方略卷首 pingding zhungaer fanglüe juan shou; Mong. ǰegün γar-un γaǰar-i töbsidken toγataniγuluγsan bodulγ-a-yin bicig-ün terigün debter

The first two parts, the foreword written by the Qianlong emperor, and Fuheng’s memorial, which is respectfully presented to the emperor, explain their perspectives on the reason for compiling this Manchu source, as revealed earlier. Compared to the Qianlong emperor’s foreword, Fuheng’s memorial has been expanded with supplemental data regarding the historical context of the western region from the Eastern Han Dynasty (25 AD–220 AD) to the Qing Dynasty, including a list of 87 names and their positions. Furthermore, a catalogue continues with the dates marking the beginning and end of each book included in the three collections, totaling 171. A head book summarizes significant events during and before the Qing Dynasty’s occupation of the Dzüüngar Empire and the Muslim citizens in the Tarim Basin: the submission of the Dzüüngarian noblemen to the Qing Dynasty due to internal conflict within the empire; how the Dzüüngarian population warmly welcomed the Qing army; how the Muslims under Dzüüngarian control were pleased that the Qing military entered their territory; how the Kazakhs respectfully received the Qing dynasty envoys; and the unfortunate fate of those who rebelled against Qing authority. Finally, it briefly introduces the main topics and dates in the three collections.

Man. julergi banjibun, Chin. 前編 qian bian, Mon. emünedü ǰokiyal, “The First Collection” of 54 books, covers from 1700 to 1753, beginning with the historical chronicle on the auspicious date of July 4, 1700, with the campaigns to conquer Qinghai. It concludes on the propitious occasion of September 20, 1753, marked by the appointment of Yong Chang (永常, d. 1755) to the esteemed post of Governor-General of the Western Frontier Area of Shaanxi and Gansu Provinces. This collection offers a comprehensive synthesis of the intricate interactions between the Qing Dynasty and the Dzüüngar Empire, encompassing pivotal events such as the military confrontation between Tseveenrabdan and Kangxi in 1716–1720,^[21] which transpired in the lofty environs of the Tibetan plateau. Furthermore, it meticulously recounts the protracted engagements between Galdantseren and Yongzheng within the regions of Barkhöl and Altai from 1730 to 1733, which resulted in the Dzüüngar-Qing court border demarcation agreement of 1734–1740.^[22] In addition to these significant historical events, this collection meticulously details aspects such as military logistics, remuneration, facilities, plantations, provisioning, diplomatic entanglements, and clandestine intelligence operations. In stark contrast to the central and supplementary collections, which encapsulated a single year’s events within twelve and six volumes separately, the first collection comprises one year’s incidents within a singular volume as a brief introduction to the previous background of the Qianlong period.

From 1753 to 1760, Man. jingkini banjibun, Chin. 正編 zheng bian, Mon. ǰingkini ǰokiyal, “The Main collection” consists of 85 books, commencing with a memorial of Tsengunjav, vice-general for the Left side of the Pacification of the Frontier on November 23, 1753, about the submission of Dorvod noblemen, three Tseren^[23] from the Dzüüngar Empire. This collection ended on March 3, 1760, regarding the Qianlong emperor’s bestowing to General Jaohūi (1708–1764), vice-general Fude (d. 1776), councillor Mingšui (d. 1768), Balu (d. 1770), and newly subjugated Muslims during the ceremony held at the 丰泽园 Fengzeyuan. The main themes in the collection encompass the Qing Dynasty’s strategic manipulation that led the Dzüüngarian elites to acquiesce to Qing authority, orchestrating the Qing military incursion into the Dzüüngar Empire^[24] with notable success. For example, it mentions the Qianlong emperor’s strategy to rule after conquering the Dzüüngarians by categorizing them into four parts based on their ethnic group,^[25] thereby diminishing their collective influence. In response to a rebellion by the Dzüüngarian nobility, the Qing administration changed policy, adopting a more repressive approach, which led to massacres.^[26] Further, this collection emphasizes the Dzüüngarian prince’s internal conflict during the Qing dynasty’s occupation. The next significant entry in the main collection was about Muslim citizens’ submission to the Qing Dynasty, subsequently followed by an exploration of the dissent and uprisings that transpired among the Muslim elites, including significant figures such as Manggalik (d. 1757?), Buranidun (d. 1759), and Hojijan (d. 1759), who actively resisted Qing dominion and met their demise in the course of their resistance efforts.^[27]

Encompassing 32 books, from 1760 to 1765, Man. sirame banjibun, Chin. 續編 xu bian, Mon. daruγ-a ǰokiyal, “The Supplemental Collection” was initiated on March 5, 1760, concerning the Qianlong emperor edict accorded to the Solon military contingent upon their triumphant return, replete with meritorious achievements. Terminated on November 7, 1765, with a memorial of Mingšui, the general for managing the Ili region, he led a campaign against the Muslim populations and successfully subjected them to Qing dominion. The collection includes documents on the administrative structure of the Qing government introduced to its newly conquered territory by incorporating native Mongol and Muslim customs and practices. For instance, the Qianlong emperor issued an edict on January 3, 1763, attempting to deal with the lack of firewood, with the main reason behind this the increase in sedentary people in Man. Ice jecen; Chin. 新疆 xin jiang, “newly conquered territory” – a nomadic environment. According to the edict, Man. ili-de tebuhe hafan cooha, jai jihe hūdai irgese ulhiyan-i labdu ofi hanci šurdeme ba-i deijiku-be baitalahai deijiku bisire ba ulhiyen-i goro oho, “the number of officers, soldiers stationed in the Yili, merchants, and civilians gradually increased, and they used all the firewood nearby, and the place with the firewood was becoming far away.”^[28] The Qianlong emperor applauded General Mingšui’s action, which was to discover Man. wehe yaha, Chin. 煤窑 meiyao, “a coalpit” in the surrounding area; however, he issued a decree to maintain the nomadic life of the Solon and Chakhar soldiers and prohibit the Manchu soldiers from settling in the city. As a result of these activities, a set of commercial laws was formulated to govern the economic activities of the nomadic populace residing in this region. Additionally, directives were issued to facilitate the cultivation of sustenance crops on previously unutilized lands, legal provisions on tributary obligations were established, mechanisms for safeguarding the region were put in place, and regulations governing residential arrangements were promulgated.

1.2 Maintenance and Publications of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe

The Manchu and Chinese block print versions of the Jun gari bodogon-i bithe have been collected in four countries’ archives and libraries. In particular, France, Germany, and Mongolia provide complete and incomplete Manchu versions, while China has complete Chinese versions that are the variants of the 1772 and 1781 versions. Additionally, the Chinese version’s incomplete reproductions made by a Japanese official in 1805 have been preserved in the Nagasaki Magistrate’s Office, Japan. One of the major contributions to the current source is that most of these administration offices make the entire source in their storage available for free through their websites, making it easier for academics, regardless of their location, to access it. The National Library of France^[29] containing the complete Manchu version of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe has posted the entire version on its website. Compared with the National Library of France, the State Museum in Berlin^[30] has an incomplete Manchu version, particularly the 109 books^[31] (of 172), but it has introduced color-scanned files with a well-organized catalogue. The next incomplete Manchu version, with the 49 books,^[32] is stored in the National Archive of Mongolia,^[33] in its online system. Due to its fundamental value in eighteenth-century Mongolian history, Mongolian academics in the previous century have completely translated it into Uighur-Mongolian script preserved in the National Library of Mongolia^[34] under the title Mon. Jun γar-un γaǰar-i töbsidken toγtaγaγsan bodulγ-a-yin bičig.^[35] This Mongolian translation is evidence that the complete Manchu version was collected in Mongolia, since the Qing dynasty established three main government offices in Mongolia, namely, the Military Governor in Uliyastai (1732–1911), the Imperial Resident in Yeke Küriye (1758–1911), and the Assistant Military Governor in Khovd (1761–1911). Chakhar Mongolian historian, politician, and linguist Burd Buyanchuulgan (1885–1937) translated and discussed the Manchu source Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe while he worked at the Institute of Science Mongolia from 1932 to 1937, which was a significant period in Mongolian studies. Nearly 150 years after Mongolia declared independence from the Qing dynasty in 1911, Mongolians began writing the political history of their country. His Chinese and Manchu language skills led him to visit Beijing in 1923 and he became chairman of the all-military training committee. Additionally, he served in the USSR as ambassador from 1925 to 1929 and was Deputy Minister of the Foreign Ministry from 1929 to 1932. Unfortunately, he was shot during the political repression in 1937.^[36]

A series of four Chinese books, reproduced from Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe and now kept in Japan, demonstrate the text’s importance for the Japanese in understanding the neighboring political developments during their encounter with the Russian Empire (1721–1917) at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Ota Nanpo (大田南畝; 1749–1823), who served as the director of accounting at 長崎奉行所 Nagasaki Buyosho, “the Nagasaki Magistrate’s Office,” from December 6 to January 14, 1805, reproduced the Chinese block print of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe (comprising 12 boxes) and its associated components. According to Ota Nanpo’s records, this compilation arrived in Japan by sea in 1803. He later reproduced a preface containing the Qianlong Emperor’s order, a foreword, a memorial by Fuheng presented to the throne on a ceremonial occasion, and a comprehensive index.^[37] His main focus was on the political relationship between the Qing dynasty and the Russian Empire. This included historical events such as the Kangxi Emperor’s edict to the leader of Chikoy village in 1715, the signing of the Kyakhta Treaty in 1727, Amarsanaa’s flight to Russia in 1757–1758, and the tensions affecting the Kyakhta Trade between the Qing Dynasty and the Russian Empire in 1759. Ota Nanpo’s principal motivation for undertaking this extensive reproduction of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe in 1804 was driven by the need to gain a thorough understanding of the historical context between the Russian Empire and the Qing Dynasty, especially because of the escalating pressures on Japan following the arrival of the special envoy Nikolai Petrovich Rezanov (1764–1807).^[38]

At present, two government offices, 故宫博物院 “The Palace Museum” in Bejing^[39] and 國立故宮博物院 “National Palace Museum” in Taipei, hold copies of the Chinese block print of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe. Like the Manchu version, the Chinese version has been made accessible online thanks to the efforts of several universities and organizations. Of note is the Peking University-Byte Dance Open Lab for Digital Humanities^[40] which presented an understandable version of the 1781 Chinese version of Jun gari bodogon-i bithe. They inserted punctuation into the original Chinese text to distinguish where new sentences begin and end and clarified unclear Chinese characters in the text. Following the Chinese version of Jun gari bodogon-i bithe, Chinese scholars have played a principal role in publishing the Chinese block print of the present source due to its preservation in their homeland. The 1772 Chinese block print was first published in four volumes by the Tibetan Academy of Social Sciences in 1990,^[41] marking the first time the Chinese block print collections had been made available. Subsequently, the National Palace Museum produced the 1781 Chinese block print version as volumes 47 through 53 of the Forbidden City Rare Book Collection in 2000 (which consists of seven volumes),^[42] which the Taiwan Commercial Press Company Limited published in three volumes in 2008.^[43] Thanks to Chinese historians’ hard work in publishing the source and introducing it into the academic framework, the Chinese version has gained recognition for its historical significance. In 1994, a collaborative project involving Национальная академия наук Республики Казахстан, Институт уйгуроведения, “the Institute of Uighur Studies and the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan,” and Академия наук Республики Узбекистан, Институт востоковедения имени Абу Райхана Беруни, “the Abu Rayhan Beruni Institute of Oriental Studies from the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan,” released a volume of 55 memorials from Jun Gar-i Bodogon-i bithe about East Turkestan (1755–1762),^[44] which was later translated to Russian, based on the Chinese version.

In contrast, the Manchu version was introduced much later, in particular with the contribution of the National Library of France in 2010. This prompted scholarly comparison between both versions. An initial milestone was reached in 2020, when Mongolian historians conducted a detailed study of the Manchu version, recognizing its value for understanding eighteenth-century Mongolian history. A complete translation of Jun gari bodogon-i bithe into Uyghur-Mongolian script was completed in the 1930s, but it received little academic attention due to the uncertainty of the original version used for translation. Тод номын гэрэл төв, “The Centre of the Light of the Clear Script Books,” together with several Mongolian young historians^[45] translated the Manchu version at the National Library of France into Cyrillic Mongolian. This version was published as volumes 89 to 98 of the Bibliotheca Oiratica series, which included 10 volumes and 2,547 pages, as well as an index of personal and place names. As a project member, the author was pleased to be a part of this project and translated more than 30 volumes of the Main collection of the Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe from Manchu to Cyrillic Mongolian (Figure 4).^[46]

Figure 4:

Cyrillic Mongolian complete translation of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe (in 2020).

1.3 Authors’ Involvement in Jun Gar-i bodogon-i bithe

The Chinese and Manchu prefaces identify 87 individuals^[47] who contributed to its invention and publication. Their roles included chief and vice supervisor, proctor, collector, chief reviser, Chinese and Manchu reviser, corrector, and official translator. These 87 individuals were connected to 16 institutes in the Qing government, including: the Boards of Civil Appointments, Revenue, Rites, War, Justice and Work; the Court of Colonial Affairs; the Department Director of the Imperial Household; the National Academy; the Imperial Equipage; the Workshop of the Imperial Household; the Imperial Patent Office; the Imperial Clan Court; the Court of Banqueting; the Grand Secretariat; and the Court of Imperial Instruction. The authors could be classified into three groups based on their ethnogenetic background: Manchu, Mongol, and Chinese. 50 were Chinese (57 %) followed by 34 Manchu (39 %) and three Mongols. The Mongol contributors were from the Borjigin clan Bandi (班第, d. 1755), the Sartuk clan Nayantai (納延泰, d. 1762), and Bayansan (巴延三, ?). The proctor and reviser played a significant role in the composition of Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe, who made up one half of the team and had three different responsibilities. To understand the development of this source, one must focus on who witnessed the events and how their knowledge was formed, especially that of the 19 supervisors who played a significant role in the project. Insights can be gained through examination of their biographies.

Laiboo (1681–1764) of the Hitara clan is noteworthy for his early experience with the Mongols. His family, part of the Hitara clan, who belonged to the Manchu Plain White Banner, came from the Changbai Mountains, Niyaman Mountains, and Dong E Valley, which they had inhabited since the beginning of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644).^[48] Laiboo was a member of the Grand Council of State, a secretary in the Ministry of Public Works, and a Grand Secretary of Wuying Hall. He was awarded with a biography in 欽定八旗通志, “Imperially Endorsed Eight Banners Complete Record,” volume 161 and Individual’s Record volume 41. It is clear that Laiboo was neither an eyewitness nor a participant in the Qianlong era battles, but he was familiar with the conflict between the Dzüüngar Empire and the Qing dynasty during the Yongzheng (r. 1722–1735) reign. His name appears only four times in the text,^[49] all in relation to events in the Yongzheng period. In 1731, he was sent to the Kalmyk Mongols as an envoy but due to the political situation he returned to Beijing.^[50] In 1734, he visited the Sechen Khan province, indicating his rich knowledge of the Mongols living in different territories and the Mongolian language, to some extent.^[51] Nayantai (d. 1762) of the Sartuk clan is likely to have worked with Laiboo, and the Manchu source identified him as a general between October 1731 and September 1756. His ancestors belonged to the Khorchin Mongols and were incorporated into the Mongol Plain Blue Banner.^[52] Like Laiboo, he was awarded a biography in the Imperially Endorsed Eight Banners Complete Record, Volume 188 and Individual’s Record Volume 68. In the context of this Manchu source, Yengišan (1696–1771) of the Janggiya lineage, affiliated with the Manchu Bordered Yellow Banner, appears to have played a significant role in the management of Tibetan affairs. He is noteworthy for compiling a summary of the background of envoys dispatched by the Dzüüngarian regime to gather merit during the 1740s (Figure 5).^[53]

Figure 5:

The participation percentage of nine teams’ 87 individuals.

Figure 6:

Personalia, according to the Manchu-Chinese block prints’ preface (the present English translation of the titles and positions of the participants in the source publication is based on the following dictionaries: Norman (2013) and Zhang and Xue (2020)).

As previously mentioned, Fuheng, the Qianlong Emperor’s brother-in-law, appears 11 times^[54] as grand secretary. He was a member of the Fuca clan, was one of the prominent eight clans of the Manchu, including Tungguya, Gūwalgiya, Magiya, Socoro, Hešeri, Nara, and Niohuru. Although he was not physically present during the campaigns against Dzüüngarian and Muslim citizens, his familial proximity to the Qianlong Emperor gave him privileged access to pertinent information, which made him the primary supporter of the emperor in military matters.^[55] In April 1756, Fuheng received an order to join the Western Route Army after the failure of Tseren (d. 1756), vice-general of the Left wing in the Pacification of the Frontier, to apprehend the Dzüüngarian prince Amarsanaa, who led a revolt against the Qing Dynasty. However, two days after leaving Beijing, he returned after receiving assurances from Tseren that he was committed to capturing Amarsanaa.^[56] In contrast to his father, Fulungga (1743–1784) played an active part in the conflict from 1757 to 1759,^[57] and was given the title of Loyal and Brave Duke of the First Class in 1759.^[58]

Jaohūi (1708–1764) was a prominent figure of the Uya clan, and either served as a pivotal overseer in Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe or was given special mention in the text for his significant contributions during the Qing conquest of the Dzüüngarian and Muslim communities from 1755 to 1759. Due to his significant involvement in these events, his name appears repeatedly in the Manchu chronicle, particularly in the central and supplementary collections. Although the source refrains from glorifying Jaohūi’s conquests, its deliberate mention of the three specific individuals within the content and their inclusion to accentuate their achievements and setbacks serves as a notable manifestation of the sponsored feature inherent in the source. Among these figures, Bandi (d. 1755), hailing from the Borjigin Mongol line, occupies a significant position. As an eyewitness and active participant, he was listed in the third following Fuheng and Laiboo, and was appointed as vice-general for the Left side of the Pacification of the Frontier in July 1754. Before the inception of the source’s composition, Bandi and councillor Oyonggo (1714–1755) sacrificed their lives during a siege by Dzüüngarian rioters around August 24, 1755. As the eldest son of Ortai (1680–1745), the teacher of Hu Zhongzao^[59] (胡中藻; d. 1755) despised by the Qianlong Emperor,^[60] Oyonggo represented the Sirin Gioro clan (one of the branches of the Manchu Gioro family). Recognizing their remarkable actions during the adversary’s siege, the editors have named these two individuals heroes, exemplifying a profound loyalty that transcends generations. Here, the sanctioned or sponsored features of the source provide a poignant example. Contrary to the above case, Yarhašan (1689–1759), a member of the Aisin-Gioro clan, exemplified the consequences of being incapable of leading an army and disloyalty. For instance, the Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe indicates that the Chinese troops of the Green Banner died because of his lack of leadership capability. Man. Coohai bade nimeme akū oho niowanggiyan turun-i cooha de gosire kesi isibuha, aliha bithei da sade dergi hese wasimbuhangge, Jaohūi sei baci hese be dahame yerkiyang ni bade nimeme bucehe, jai ebsi jidere de jagūn-i unduri nimeme bucehe niowanggiyan turun-i cooha be getukeleme baicafi wesimbuhebi {…} te ere jergi nimeme bucehe urse gemu Yarhašan-i guca ci gaifi genehe cooha, guilehe-i jergi jaka be fatafi jeme dabnaha turgunde, ilhi hefeliyeneme nimeme bucehe seme turgun be tucibume wesimbuhe be tuwaci, gemu Yarhašan-i kadalahangge fuhali fafun šajin akū ci banjihangge (“The Chinese troops of the Green Banner who died in the military camp have bestowed the mercy of favour. The emperor’s order was issued to the grand secretary. Jaohūi and others memorialized the examination of the Chinese troops of the Green Banner who attacked Yarkent and who died of illness on the way back. {…} According to the memorial, the soldiers who died of illness were all brought by Yarhašan from Kuqa. They died of diarrhoea due to eating too many apricots and other foods. This situation was caused by Yarhašan’s lack of leadership rules and statutes”).^[61] Furthermore, Yarhašan let the rebels escape from his siege. Man. te bicibe Yarhašan se guce de Hojijan be horiha manggi, ce aika ciralame tuwakiyambihe bici, fudarkan hūlha aide bahafi tucimbini (“When Yarhašan and others besieged the rebel Hojijan (d. 1759) in Kuqa, and if Yarhašan and others strictly defended them, the rebels would be unable to escape”).^[62] Four years after his appointment as vice-general tasked with quelling Amursana’s rebellion in December 1755, he faced execution. The editors regarded his case as an example of bureaucratic inefficiency and ineffectiveness in military campaigns, aimed at illustrating the consequences of disloyalty and ungratefulness to future generations.

The distinguished figure Šuhede (1710–1777), affiliated with the Šumuru clan, began his efforts to pacify the Dzüüngarianterritory in January 1753. Unlike Jaohūi, Šuhede operated primarily within the military camp, where he had responsibility for logistics, including military provisions, attire, weaponry, equine assets, encampment arrangements, and oversight of conquered or peacefully surrendered foreign citizens. Following the conquest, Arigūn (d. 1769) and Agūi (1717–1797), prominent members of the Niohuru and Janggiya clans, were appointed Imperial Residents in Muslim cities. Their roles involved the governance of the newly integrated populaces.

Liu Tongxun (1700–1773), a native of Shandong province, appears in the Jun gar-i bodogon-i bithe in the period of May 1754 to December 1758. Among his recorded duties were oversight of equine resources and logistics provision for the military across the Gansu and Shaanxi provinces. He also contributed to the Qing Dynasty’s cartographic efforts by surveying mountains, rivers, basins, terrains, and geographical locations within the western territories of the Qing Dynasty, which had previously been part of the Dzüüngar Empire and the Tarim basin.^[63] Six individuals are not mentioned in the content of this Manchu source: Wang Youdun (1692–1758), who was active in the Classics Colloquium, and who served as the Grand Guardian of the Heir Apparent and held the position of Minister at the Board of Civil Appointments; Solin (?), affiliated with the Bordered Red Banner of the Manchu army; Liu Lun (1711–1773), a regular participant in the Classics Colloquium; Qiu Yuexiu (1712–1773), also noted as a participant in the Classics Colloquium; Yu Minzhong (1714–1780), who held the esteemed role of Grand Guardian of the Heir Apparent; and Santai (d. 1758), a member of the Han army’s Plain White Banner.