Sie sind auf Seite 1von 49

SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA:

A SOCIO-CULTURAL APPROACH

BY

ROBIN D. S. YATES
(McGill University)

Abstract
This essay analyzes the nature of slavery in early China from a comparative socio-
cultural perspective, using the sociological approach of Orlando Patterson (Slavery and
Social Death, 1982). Marxist and other theoretical positions are rejected in favor of
viewing slaves not as the object of property, but rather seeing that slaves could not be
the subject of property. In other words, slaves are “dominated non-persons.” The focus
of the inquiry is on interpreting the diverse materials relating to slaves in the Qin legal
documents discovered at Shuihudi, Hunan Province, in 1975. Brief consideration is
given to other statuses, such as the convict status of lichen and liqie (male and female
bondservants), and whether they should be considered slaves or not. The conclusion
emphasizes the importance of analyzing early Chinese slavery within its culturally rich
context of ritual and cosmological conceptions and practices.

Introduction1

Over the last two decades, slavery has become the topic of numerous
studies to such an extent that one might say that slavery has become
1
An earlier draft of this essay was presented at the Conference on Ancient China
and Social Science Generalizations, Airlie House, Virginia, 21–27 June, 1986. I would
like to thank Perry Anderson and Lin Ganquan for their valuable comments on that
draft. A Chinese translation of an earlier version of this article, “Gudai Zhongguo
nulizhi bijiao lishi yanjiu 古代中國奴隸制比較歷史研究 ,” was published in Zhongguoshi
yanjiu 中國史研究 111 (1986), 21–34. This essay is dedicated to my late teacher and
mentor Professor Kwang-chih Chang, who throughout my career, even in his illness,
unfailingly gave me wise advice and generous support. I am also very thankful for the
valuable suggestions and corrections by Lothar von Falkenhausen, Robert E. Murow-
chick, and David Cohen. David Cohen also solved many software problems at the final
stages of the preparation of this essay. To him I am much indebted. I would also like to
express my gratitude to the Killam Foundation and the Canada Council for the Arts,
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and Fonds pour la
© Brill, Leiden 2002 JEAA 3, 1–2
284 ROBIN D . S . YATES

an academic industry in its own right (cf. Karras 1991; Miller 1985;
Parish 1989). The reasons for this interest in slavery stem from, on the
one hand, the work of the so-called cliometricians, led by Fogel and
Engerman (1974), who developed new historical and statistical tech-
niques to reevaluate the nature and economics of the slave system from
the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries in the area that became the
southern United States, and on the other, from studies of ancient slavery
by historians of Classical Greece and Rome (Finley 1968, 1980, 1983).
In addition, Western Marxist scholars attempted to develop the scattered
and rudimentary remarks of Marx and Engels on the theory of pre-
capitalist modes of production into a rigorously scientific formulation.
They have tried to apply Marx’s methodology in general theoretical
terms as well as to the analysis of particular social formations in which
slavery has been found to exist. Perry Anderson (1974) has been among
the most prominent scholars in England to devote attention to the issues.
In France, the group of anthropologists around Claude Meillassoux
(1975, 1978) have examined much ethnographic material from Africa.
In Western studies of modern China, James Watson (1980a, b, c) has
written detailed ethnographic papers and developed more general, com-
parative theories on the relations between Asian and African systems of
slavery. Simultaneaously, Orlando Patterson (1979, 1982) developed his
own, highly original theories on the topic of slavery in general.
The question of slavery in ancient China, however, was passed over
by most Western experts on slavery and even by specialists on China,
despite this growing interest in the topic of slavery among historians in
general. In this essay, I would like to analyze some of the new evidence
relating to slavery in ancient China that has only recently come to light,
in the hopes that the discussions of the question of slavery will lead to a
better understanding of the economic and social basis of the traditional
Chinese state. In addition, I hope to bring the ancient Chinese evidence
to the attention of those involved in the international debate about the
nature of slavery and its role in the development of world history.
Since the volume of studies on slavery is enormous, in this essay I
intend to use material relating to the slave systems of ancient Greece and
Rome to help illuminate relevant issues in ancient China because of their
comparable antiquity and their importance for laying the foundations
of Western and Eastern civilizations respectively. By doing this, I do not
intend to cast any aspersions on the value of drawing comparisons with
other slave systems in other social formations, such as those in Africa and
America: I merely wish to limit the article to manageable proportions.

Formation des Chercheurs et de l’Aide à la Recherche, Québec, for financial support


in the preparation of this article.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 285

In addition, I will concentrate upon the period of the Warring States


and Qin China, the period when the foundations of the traditional
Chinese political, social, economic, and religious system were laid, and
therefore I will not enter upon an analysis of slavery in later imperial
times to any great extent.
In academic circles in China, the notion that there was, and will be,
an inexorable unilineal historical progression of modes of production,
from primitive communist, to slave, to feudal, to capitalist, to communist,
was generally accepted as valid until recently. The most influential of
these scholars was the late Guo Moruo (1973) (cf. Liu Weimin 1975)
who changed his mind several times on the date when the slave mode
of production gave way to the feudal. In fact, much discussion centered
round this question of periodization and by the 1980’s the consensus
seemed to be that the period of the Warring States to the Qin 秦 was
the watershed between the two modes of production. The Qin empire
ushered in the feudal mode of production which lasted until the end
of the traditional period, with the “sprouts of capitalism” beginning in
the late Ming 明 .
Yet despite this conclusion by their Chinese colleagues, a growing
number of Western scholars, both Marxist and non-Marxist, disagree
with this analysis in their empirical studies and theoretical essays. Finley,
for example, states “[a]lthough slaves have been exploited in most societ-
ies as far back as any records exist, there have been only five genuine slave
societies, two of them in antiquity: classical Greece and Classical Italy.”
He continues by declaring that the other three all were to be found in the
New World (Finley 1980: 9). Meillassoux contends that “[s]lavery always
appears in association with other relationships of production, so that it
does not constitute the only or even the dominant mode of production,
and the ruling class cannot be defined strictly only in relationship to it”
(Meillassoux 1975: 20–21, quoted and translated by Patterson 1979: 47).
Marxist analysis should not for that reason be abandoned, but rather
the argument suggests one must “reject any proto-Marxist shuffling of
prefabricated Modes of Production summarily borrowed from this or
that writing or remark of Marx or Engels.” Indeed, he believes that, as
of 1975, “no formal criterion has been brought to light which permits
the creation of a categorical distinction between slaves and all other
forms [of dependent labor]” (Meillassoux 1975: 21, my translation).
Anderson, on the other hand, is of the opinion that “[t]he slave mode
of production was the decisive invention of the Graeco-Roman world,
which provided the basis both for its accomplishments and its eclipse.”
On the other hand, slavery existed in many forms in other earlier and
contemporaneous societies but in them it was never “the predominant
type of surplus extraction” (Anderson 1974: 21).
286 ROBIN D . S . YATES

One of the most difficult problems facing theoreticians is the fact


that slavery has existed in many different societies at many levels of
socio-economic and cultural evolution. The slave plantations of the
New World were part of the developing capitalist mode of production,
and tied in to the world market, yet at the same time “[s]lavery is clearly
compatible with all types of post-neolithic economy” (Goody 1980).
What criteria should be used to define slavery as a mode of produc-
tion, and how did the idea develop that slavery was one stage in the
hierarchy of modes of production that all, or almost all, societies must
pass through? Robert Padgug (1976) provides the answer to the second
question. He notes that “it has been customary among Marxists, es-
pecially those in Eastern Europe, to designate slavery as the first form
of class division and to consider the early societies which contained
it—and most of them indeed did — to represent varieties of a single
type of slave society,” which stood at the beginning of a kind of univer-
sal slave stage. It was a speech by Lenin on “The State” that first gave
the theory currency and it was accepted by Stalin in the 1920’s and
1930’s to be the basis for academic discussions and analyses of world
historical development. From the Soviet Union, it passed into Chinese
scholarly circles. Padgug notes that the idea of this universal stage “has
gradually been abandoned in the USSR and elsewhere.” But, it should
be pointed out, in China it still has its adherents, although the issue of
slavery and Marxist theory has been of diminished intellectual interest
among early historians since the beginning of the 1990’s.
Theoretically speaking, there is no reason that, if the notion that
slavery formed a universal stage in history is rejected, it is necessary at
the same time to reject the theoretical possibility of a slave mode of
production. Indeed, Padgug (1976), Anderson (1974), and Hindess and
Hirst (1975: 109–77) all attempt to define the structure of this potential
slave mode. Patterson (1979: 49–52) provides some pertinent criticism
of the latters’ theory. They claim that a defining feature of slaves is that
they are separated from the means of production, but Patterson cor-
rectly observes that not only slaves but also workers in capitalist society
are so separated, such that this cannot be a distinguishing feature. Fur-
thermore, their assertion that there is no separation between necessary
labor and surplus labor apparent in the slave mode of production, he
argues, simply is not true. The slave-owner is quite well aware of the
difference between the labor input of the slaves and other factors of
production, and the costs of maintaining slaves is carefully assessed
against the value of their output.
In addition, Patterson finds fault with their assertion that a slave is
not forced to labor as a worker is in the capitalist system, for the slave
would not be fed if he did not work. Physical coercion being so common
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 287

to the slave’s everyday experience, this would not be sufficient to cause


him to exert himself: removal of food would have the desired effect.
So in capitalist societies, workers are subject to physical abuse if they
refuse to work and this forces them to contribute their labor, whereas
it is economic force that makes a slave work. Thus Hindess and Hirst’s
formulation of the slave mode of production is open to serious criti-
cism.
Anderson, in his compelling and detailed analysis of the ancient
Graeco-Roman world, argues that slavery became the dominant, but
not the only, mode of production in fifth and fourth century bc Greece,
when the size of the slave population in relation to the free increased
substantially. At that point, “the nature (of slavery) became absolute:
it was no longer one relative form of servitude among many, along a
gradual continuum, but a polar condition of complete loss of freedom,
juxtaposed against a new and untrammelled liberty,” freedom entailed
slavery and vice versa (Anderson 1974: 23). From that time on, slavery
structured each of the micro-economies of the Greek city-state world
and gave Greek civilization its special characteristics. As Rome con-
quered the states and peoples surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and
enslaved huge numbers of the defeated populations, a similar transfor-
mation took place.
Slaves labored primarily in the fields of the great latifundia estates, and
the surplus that was extracted from them was consumed in the cities,
enabling the urban elites to indulge in unparalleled luxury. Ultimately,
however, slavery and slave relations of production paralyzed technologi-
cal innovation and the forces of production reached their limits: the
slave mode of production gave way to the feudal. At the height of the
slave mode of production, however, slaves were one of the most highly
movable commodities in the ancient inter-city market exchange system
and the surplus they generated provided the economic basis of ancient
society.
With these preliminary remarks in mind, let us now turn to the ques-
tion of slavery in ancient China.

Slavery in Warring States China

In China from the Neolithic to the late Western Zhou 西周 and early
Eastern Zhou 東周 periods, there was no strict separation in status be-
tween the lowest members of the society and the highest. All members
were to a certain extent unfree, and it was only in the middle of the
Spring and Autumn period that a market economy really developed. I
am not claiming that there were no slaves at all in early times. Rather,
288 ROBIN D . S . YATES

I wish to argue that there was a radical change in the nature of slavery
in the middle of the Eastern Zhou period, comparable to that discussed
by Anderson in fifth and fourth century bc Greece, when slaves for the
first time came to be bought and sold. I will explain my interpretation
of the nature of slavery in ancient China and the role it played in the
social formation in the following pages. But before embarking upon this
analysis, I would like to point out that I shall draw much of my infor-
mation from the Qin legal documents, which were only discovered in
1975 at Shuihudi 睡虎地 , in Yunmeng 雲夢 , Hubei 湖北 .2 These docu-
ments provide essential information not available to previous scholars
of ancient Chinese slavery. In the West, the most notable are Martin
Wilbur (1943), Wang Yi-t’ung (1953), Edwin Pulleyblank (1958), and
Ch’ü T’ung-tsu (1972).
In 9 ad, the usurper Wang Mang 王莽 proclaimed his inaugural edict
in which he condemned the state of Qin for lacking the Way (Dao 道 ).
Among the greatest of Qin’s faults, according to Wang, was that they
established slave markets that were the same as those for oxen and horses.
And throughout the Han 漢 , it was believed that many hereditary slaves
were the descendants of criminals whose families had been enslaved
under the laws of mutual responsibility (lianzuo 連坐 ) promulgated by
the infamous legalist statesman Shang Yang 商鞅 or Lord Shang 商君 in
Qin in the fourth century bc (Wilbur 1943: 72–79; Tomiya Itaru 1985;
Yates 1987).3 The new laws paved the way for Qin’s successful conquest
of its rivals and its founding of the Chinese imperial order in 221 bc,
and this form of legal enslavement for high treason continued down to
the end of the Qing 清 dynasty. Just what role slavery played in Qin’s
unification effort, therefore, is of vital importance for understanding
the internal dynamics of the Chinese historical process.
A final reason for considering the question of slavery is that the nature
of slavery goes to the heart of the nature of social status and the social
structure not only of the early period in Chinese history, but also in the
later traditional period as well. It even has implications for social status
in the twentieth century. Slavery was only formally abolished in China
itself in the last years of the Qing dynasty (Philip C.C. Huang 2001: 17),4
2
My references in this essay are to Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian Zhengli Xiaozu (1978)
(hereafter abbreviated SHD, but see also Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian Zhengli Xiaozu
(1990). The bibliography on the Shuihudi texts is enormous. I bring the attention
of the reader only to the studies by Xu Fuchang (1993), Li Jing (1985), Wu Fuzhu
(1994), Yu Zongfa (1992), Xing Yitian (1987); Hori Tsuyoshi (1988), and Ôba Osamu
(1991).
3
The Shuo wen 說文 dictionary is one of the texts in which the opinion on the origin
of slaves is to be found (Xu Zhongshu 1981: vol.1, 652).
4
However, the enslavement of ordinary “good” commoners was illegal under the
Qing and punished severely, because the Qing were anxious to maintain the proper
hierarchy in society (Philip C.C. Huang 1996: 94–95).
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 289

but survived until the Communist liberation in 1949 (Watson 1980c;


Meijer 1980). Recent studies suggest that the practice is still not defunct
today, even though outlawed (Watson 1980c: 245). On the mainland,
recent newspaper articles have brought attention to the fact that some
unscrupulous entrepreneurs are luring young and naive peasant girls
from provinces such as Sichuan 四川 with promises of employment
in the cities. But instead of fulfilling their promises, they kidnap them
and sell them as brides to peasants in far off provinces such as Hubei,
Henan 河南 , and Hebei 河北 .
Slavery goes to the heart of social status by a dialectical opposi-
tion: slaves are quintessentially not free and not honored. Through an
analysis of slaves, the meaning of the concepts “freedom” and “status”
in traditional China and the nature of slavery in ancient China can
be better understood.5 Of course, by “freedom” here I am not in any
way implying that the notion of “freedom” in traditional China was at
all the same as that in the West. The present study will help to explain
why.

The definition of slavery

1. Slaves as property
Most scholars who have studied the question have emphasized the
fact that slaves were property. Watson, drawing on the work of Finley,
the anthropological work of Meillassoux (1975; 1978) in Africa, and
the sociological writings of H.J. Nieboer,6 has noted that this aspect is
primary, while the fact that slaves are marginal, liminal people, or out-
siders to society, is secondary (Watson 1980b: 8–9). In addition, Watson
emphasizes the fact that slaves’ labor is extracted through coercion. Let
us first take up the question of slaves as property.
Unlike in Rome and generally in Western civil law, property was not
easily alienable in China. There was no concept of absolute rights in
rem (in the thing itself) (Patterson 1982: 20). This was a special charac-
teristic of Roman private law, which, by a legal fiction, gave a person
absolute rights and control over an object.7 In Rome, the two main
5
I place the term “freedom” in quotation marks deliberately. As Finley (1983:
119–120) points out, “[f]reedom is no less complex a concept than ‘servitude’ or
‘bondage’; it is a concept which had no meaning and no existence for most of human
history; it had to be invented finally, and that invention was possible only under very
special conditions.” “Freedom,” he continues, was scarcely possible to say in nineteenth
century Chinese.
6
Nieboer (1900: 7) defines slavery as “the fact that one man is the property or pos-
session of another man, and forced to work for him.”
7
Ownership of a thing (res) could be passed in two different formal acts, either man
290 ROBIN D . S . YATES

sources of wealth were land and slaves, and it is quite possible that this
legal fiction of absolute rights over things derived from the institution
of slavery, and resulted in the definition of slaves as property. Indeed,
the Romans made a clear distinction between possession and owner-
ship, and much of Roman property law was based on the concept of
dominium, even though this term is never defined in the extant sources
of Roman law. Nevertheless, F. Schulz has concluded that “a Roman
principle must have existed to the effect that the right of ownership was
to be as unrestricted as possible and the greatest possible latitude given
to individual action and initiative” (Schulz 1936, quoted in Harrison
1968: 202, note 2).
The situation was different in Athens, however, where legal thinking
was not as highly developed. There was, in fact, “no general term to
describe the law of property; they had no abstract word for ownership”
(Harrison 1968: 201), and the sources are too fragmentary to permit
more than a sketchy interpretation of the data. Although the right and
power to alienate property had emerged by the fourth century bc, where
it had been previously extremely limited, still this power was restricted
to cases in which the owner lacked a legitimate heir, and full rights
of ownership were restricted in several other ways, including those in
which there existed joint ownership and where there were easements.
Under the law of succession, property seems to have been divided into
two parts, that which a man inherited (patrÓa) and that which he had
created or accumulated himself ( £epiktntá) (Harrison 1968: 125). The
former was hard to dispose of at will, while the individual had more
freedom of decision with respect to the latter.

cipatio or cessio in iuris (“cession in court”). Mere transfer of an object, such as a slave,
did not pass the right of ownership (Crook 1967: 141). Things were divided into two
categories, res mancipi such as land and houses on Italian soil, slaves, certain animals
such as beasts of burden and of draft (e.g., oxen) and one kind of easement, the rustic
praedial servitude, and res nec mancipi, which included everything else. The latter could
be transferred by simple delivery (traditio), for example a sheep (Jolowicz and Nicholas
1978: 137). Dominium could not be passed unless the person had the rights of dominium
himself. In fact, dominium could be achieved by simple usucapio (“acquiring dominium by
use”) which required a relatively short period to elapse before the object fell into the
user’s hands, two years for real estate and one year for movable property. As Jolowicz
and Nicholas state (1978: 140), “[t]he Roman law of classical times is dominated by
what is commonly called the absolute conception of ownership which it has evolved
and by the action through which this right is asserted, the vindicatio. Ownership, in
the developed law, may be defined as the unrestricted right of control over a physical
thing, and whosoever has the right can claim the thing he owns wherever it is and no
matter who possesses it.” In Germanic and English systems of law, there existed only
a relative right to possession, and as Patterson (1982: 20) points out, Anglo-American
law rejects the Roman civil view “[b]ecause, first, in both sociological and economic
terms . . . there can be no relation between a person and a thing. Relations only exist
between persons. Second, relations between persons with respect to some object are
always relative, never absolute.”
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 291

Ancient and traditional Chinese law seems to have lacked the notion
of absolute rights over things, and therefore it is not adequate to define
ancient Chinese slaves purely in terms of their position as property (cai
財 ) as almost all scholars have done to date.8 They were indeed property,
but were much more than property.
Hilary Beattie, in her study of Tongcheng 桐城 county in Anhui 安
徽 in the Ming and Qing dynasties, points out that “[p]rivate landhold-
ings were of course always subject to fragmentation on the owner’s
death, though it should be born in mind that property at this time
and subsequently was never freely alienable by the individual owner;
his immediate family and other relatives had rights of objection and
pre-emption which did act as a brake on the rapid dispersion of estates
among outsiders” (Beattie 1979: 8).
In fact, not only did immediate family members and relatives have
rights over such landed property, but so also did neighbors, and this
was true into the twentieth century, at least in parts of China.9 It was
therefore the traditional Chinese family or lineage that held the landed
property jointly and, of course, in essence, this meant the male members
of the lineage.10
Two theories have been advanced by Japanese scholars on this mat-
ter: one holds that family property was the sole, personal, possession

8
Niida Noboru (1944: 905–914) emphasizes this aspect, but it should be born in mind
that the evidence of this definition of slaves as property (caiwu 財物 ) only derives from
Tang and later sources. Whether the newly discovered Han 漢 laws from Jiangling 江
陵 throw some light on the early definition of slaves remains to be seen. Wilbur (1943:
63) defines a slave as “a person who is owned as actual property by another person,
group, corporation, or the state, whose services are therefore controlled, and who is
accorded a distinct status as one of a group so owned and controlled.”
9
Rev. J. Hutson (1919: 553), for example in the section “Purchase of Property,” notes
that Yo chieh hsia pai (yuejie xiabei 約界下碑 ) is to go round the boundaries of the property
along with the middlemen and neighboring landlords, who have to be invited to a feast;
their presence is equivalent to their recognition of their new neighbour.”
10
James L. Watson (1982: 594) defines “lineage” as a “corporate group which celebrates
ritual unity and is based on demonstrated descent from a common ancestor.” In the conclusion
to his article (Watson 1982: 617–18), he suggests the possibility that Chinese lineages
as anthropologists know them today may not have developed until the end of the Tang
唐 and the beginning of the Song 宋 dynasties. Before that time, the aristocratic elites
were interested in forming alliances and were particularly concerned with matters of
pedigree. They possessed lines not lineages. From the Song on, however, “the balance
shifted from alliance to descent.” While this may be true for the later period, it would
seem that lineages in Watson’s definition of the term did exist in Shang 商 and Zhou
China. Elites traced their descent from a common ancestor, even though in some cases
of the major lineages descent was claimed from a mythological ancestor, and most
lineages held towns or cities that were the ritual centers for their ancestral cults. There
have been many studies of this phenomenon, including Du Zhengsheng (1979) and
Kwang-chih Chang (1976). For recent scholarship on the changing rights of women to
property from Song dynasty times on, see Bernhardt (1999), Birge (2002), Ebrey (1993),
and McKnight and Liu (1999).
292 ROBIN D . S . YATES

of the living common ancestor, and the other is that it was held by
ascendants and descendants in a direct line. Inferiors and juniors may
use the property with the permission of the elders, such that it is not
the private property of the elders and superiors, but is subject to the
management of the latter.11
I would suggest that in the period of the late Warring States, Qin
and early Han, Chinese law resembled that of traditional Africa, in
which Miers and Kopytoff have argued that an individual can be seen
both as a member of the kin group and as part of the group’s corpo-
rate property and constitutes lineage wealth. And, they add, “[n]either
criterion of property nor that of salability can be useful in separating
slavery from simple kinship in African societies,” for kin members
are treated in ways westerners would consider property” (Miers and
Kopytoff 1977: 12; Watson 1980b: 4–5). Supporting evidence for my
view comes from section 5 of the Qin legal documents, no. 4 “Sealing
and Guarding” (fengshou 封守 ), where a list of a commoner’s property
is given as including wife, adult unmarried female daughter, non-adult
male child, two slaves, one male adult and one female non-adult, one
male dog, clothes, house, and ten mulberry trees (McLeod and Yates
1981: 137–39; Hulsewé 1985a: E3, 181–85). Again, in section 4, the
questions and answers on points of law, we find a definition of the
distinction between a so-called public domain denunciation (gongshi gao
公室告 ) and a non-public domain denunciation (fei gongshi gao 非公室
告 ).12 The former refers to a situation in which a person with murder-
ous intent kills, wounds, or robs another person, and the latter is one in
which a son or child robs his father or mother, and they on their own
responsibility (shan 擅 ) kill, mutilate, or shave their children and male
and female slaves (nüqie 女妾 ) (SHD 4.90, 195–96; cf. Huang Zhongye
1991: 143–45).13 In addition, in 4.91, if a child denounces his parents
for a crime or if slaves denounce their master, this too was a non-public
domain denunciation, and the authorities were not to take up the case.
And if a master (zhu 主 ) were on his own responsibility to kill, mutilate,
or shave his children and slaves (chenqie 臣妾 ) this too was a non-public
domain denunciation, and the authorities were not to prosecute. If the
children persisted in their accusations, they themselves incurred guilt
and if another third party took their side, again the authorities were to
ignore him (SHD 4.91, 196; Hulsewé 1985a: D 87, 148–149).

11
Schurmann (1956) observes that “some form of joint family property has existed
in China for at least two millennia,” and that junior members could not be accused of
stealing, only of appropriating common property.
12
Hulsewé (1985a: D 86, 148) translates gongshi as “official.”
13
The first transcriptions of the Shuihudi legal materials found in SHD were presented
unnumbered in Yunmeng Qinmu Zhujian Zhengli Xiaozu 1976a–c.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 293

Here we can clearly see that the parents (fumu 父母 ), and it is im-
portant to note that the mother is included, it is not just the father, are
alternatively referred to as masters (zhu 主 ), and that they have certain
rights over their children and slaves. I say “certain” intentionally because
of the presence of the term shan “on their own responsibility” in the
definitions. Generally speaking, the parents were expected to request
permission from the authorities before carrying out the punishment.
This gave the children and slaves some legal protection from arbitrary
savagery, yet since the parents were not subject to prosecution even if
they carried out the maximum penalty, the children and slaves cannot
have derived much comfort from the legal provision.
We can also see that the wife was in some ways in an anomalous
position vis-à-vis her status as property: on the one hand, she is treated
as part of her husband’s property, and, on the other, she has property
rights over her children. We find further support for this view in the
almanac texts (rishu 日書 ), where we read on the shouri 受日 (“Receiving
day”), the tenth in the twelve day Qin week, that one could bring into
one’s house people (renmin 人民 ) (i.e., slaves) horses, oxen, husked and
unhusked grain, take in wives and other things (tawu 它物 ) (Shuihudi
Qinmu Zhujian Zhengli Xiaozu 1978: plate 117, slip 752; Rao Zongyi
and Zeng Xiantong 1993: 408; Liu Lexian 1994: 33; cf. Kalinowski
1986; Loewe 1994: 221–26; Poo 1998: 69–101).
The data available at present make it very difficult to determine with
any precision Warring States conceptions of property. Did the ancient
Chinese distinguish between ownership and possession, as the Romans
did, or were their ideas more vague, like those of the Athenians? Cer-
tainly there is no theoretical explication of any such concepts in the
legal documents found at Shuihudi. Furthermore, all the references to
land in the documents seem to imply that the state was the sole owner:
only one reference to the “people’s fields” (mintian 民田 ) suggests, but
does not prove, private ownership of land (SHD 4.138).14 This is not
to say that there was no private ownership of land in the Qin. As is
well known, Han scholars frequently claimed that the scourge of the
accumulation of landed property in fewer and fewer private wealthy
hands derived from Qin land tenure practices and specifically from
Lord Shang’s destruction of the “well-field” (jingtian 井田 ) system (Gao
Min 1979; Xiong Tieji and Wang Ruiming 1981; An Zuozhang 1981;
14
Hulsewé (1985a: D 135, 164) translates mintian as “fields of commoners.” I prefer
to use “commoner” in a more technical legal sense of those with the commoner status
of “member of the rank and file,” who probably could be awarded or attain up to the
eighth rank in the ranking system. Min 民 here might refer to members of the aristo-
cratic lineages of daifu 大夫 rank as well as commoners or to members of those lineages
that did not belong to the ruling clan of Qin, if Gassman’s (2000) interpretation of the
difference between ren 人 and min is correct.
294 ROBIN D . S . YATES

Zhu Shaohou 1981; Lin Jianming 1981).15 New evidence demonstrates,


however, that this system, if it ever was a reality, was breaking down by
at least 500 bc: each of the aristocratic lineages which was fighting to
seize control of the moribund state of Jin 晉 had its own land division
and land tax system (Zhongguo Renmin Jiefangjun Junshi Kexueyuan
and Zhanzheng Lilun Yanjiubu Sunzi Zhushi Xiaozu 1977: 162–63; Guo
Huaruo 1978: 494–496). Lord Shang evidently adopted the land divi-
sion system of Zhao 趙 ,16 while taxing the peasant population to which
the land was either given or lent.17 It would appear from the Qin legal

15
Lin Jianming argues that the early Qin state never had a well-field system of land
apportionment, because before its enfeoffment with the old rich farming lands of the
Western Zhou, it was a nomadic pastoral people. When it was enfeoffed, the well-field
system was already breaking down. The earliest land system was, therefore, that of the
so-called “changing-field” (yuantian 轅 /爰田 ), in which the land was divided into three
grades according to quality, superior, middle, and lower, and each family was given a
fixed area of each, and the allotments and residences were changed every three years.
Another description states that each family was given 100 mu 畝 of land which was not
to be changed, 200 mu of land was to be changed once (every three years), and 300
mu of land to be changed twice (every three years). Thus Lin suggests that this system
developed into one in which there was a single allotment which was returned to the
state when the individual reached the retirement age of 60 years. In another way, too,
the “changing-field” system was different from the “well-field” system. In the latter, all
that the peasants (slaves, in Lin’s view) were required to perform for the state was labor
in the fields, but in the former, they were required also to perform military service (fu
賦 ). In this regard, the system of “changing-fields” was the same as the later tuntian 屯
田 “colony” system. Yet in neither system, be it the “well-field” or the early and later
“changing-field” system, did the workers have rights or powers (quan 權 ) over the land,
and it all belonged to the slave-owners, and not to the workers who were slaves (nuli 奴
隸 ). Because of the military needs of the early Qin state, it did not institute the decaying
“well-field” system but the “changing-field” allotment with its military implications.
When Lord Shang reformed the laws in Qin in the fourth century bc, he reintroduced
the “changing-field” allotment system but without the practice of changing every three
years, and thereby he merely redrew the so-called qianmo 阡陌 field boundaries of the
“well-field” system to create his new system.
While this analysis has many valuable points to it, I am not in agreement with all of
Lin’s and the other scholars’ arguments concerning the early Qin land system. For a
recent analysis of bronze inscriptions concerning transfer of title over land and related
disputes in the mid-Western Zhou, see Lau 1999; cf. Shaughnessy 1993).
It is worth noting, however, that a stone stela dating from the Eastern Han dynasty
was discovered in 1973 near Yanshi 偃師 county, Henan 河南 . This land-sale contract
provides solid evidence of one form of joint ownership of land: twenty-five individu-
als, who are named, formed a special group called the fulao dan 父老僤 of Shiting 侍
廷 village, where dan is the name of an association at the village or sub-village level, to
buy 82 mu of land for 61,500 cash (Du Zhengsheng 1990; cf. Yu Weichao 1988; Huang
Shibin 1982; Ning Ke 1982). For other views on the Qin land system, see Li Jiemin
(1981), Zhang Chuanxi (1985: 77–96), and Hulsewé (1985b: 215–218).
16
Zhao had an acre (mu) of 240 paces (bu 步 ), according to the new Sunzi 孫子 (Yates
1988: 218).
17
The Shi ji 史記 (Takigawa Kametarô 1979: j. 15, 42) records that the Qin began
to tax the land in the form of grain (chu zuhe 初租禾 ) in the seventh year of Duke Jian
簡公 (408 bc), and instituted the fu 賦 military service tax in 348 bc under Lord Shang.
(cf. Xiong Tieji and Wang Ruiming 1981: 71; Huang Jinyan 1981: 61–73).
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 295

documents that a substantial part of the land was exploited directly by


the state, using slave and convict labor, and there is no evidence at all of
buying and selling of land in them, even though other literary sources
suggest that by Later Warring States times, land was being bought and
sold at least in some areas by some authorized individuals.18 This is a
highly complex issue that cannot be discussed here at any length, for it
would take us too far afield.
The Qin laws do, however, provide us with some evidence regarding
movable property that can be interpreted as providing support for the
notion that private ownership existed and that ownership was held to
inhere in a private individual.
First, there are a number of laws specifying the rules relating to the
loan of public or state- (gong 公 ) owned property to private individuals.
These included oxen and tools, which would have been used for produc-
tion, as well as military equipment. By implication, this suggests that
there were articles that were privately (si 私 ) owned. For example, one of
the statutes on Artisans (gonglü 工律 ), in Hulsewé’s translation, states:
Government armour and arms are each to be incised or branded with the
name of the office concerned; on those that cannot be incised or branded,
it should be written with vermilion or lacquer. When armour and arms
are loaned to commoners, it is essential to record the brand-mark; they
are to be bestowed according to the brand-marks. When loaned (armour
and arms) are handed in and they have no brand-marks, as well as when
it is not the brand-mark of the office concerned, (such armour and arms)
are all to be confiscated by the government; they are to be charged ac-
cording to the Statutes on Equipment (Hulsewé 1985a: A56, 59; SHD
71–72).
Second, as pointed out above, a commoner’s property could include
family members, slaves, a dog, clothes and mulberry trees. In the case
quoted, the government confiscates or impounds this property when
the commoner is under investigation for a crime. Does this mean that
the Qin commoner lost his property rights if he was accused of a crime,
that property rights were contingent upon his good behavior? Or was
this legal maneuver merely intended to ensure that those responsible for
his behavior under the mutual liability laws could be held accountable
and that fines could be assessed against him? Further research needs
to be carried out on this issue.
Third, if we review the data in the Qin legal documents, we can
see that certain other types of articles were considered property. These

18
Hulsewé (1988: 173), observes that only one rule in the Qin law refers to “the
misappropriation of land,” but at present it is not possible to determine whether land
could actually be stolen or not.
296 ROBIN D . S . YATES

include mulberry leaves, oxen, cash,19 artisanal equipment (possibly


government property), offerings from the official sacrifices, including
kidneys (these would be presumably considered public property), a goat
with a rope round its neck, state money placed in a storehouse, pigs,
pearls and jade (apparently state property), grain, a horse, clothes, and
shoes, and crossbows and bolts.
Fourth, we find the interesting principle that “a father stealing from
his children is not a case of theft,” but a foster-father is stealing from
his foster-children (SHD 4.17, 159; Hulsewé 1985a: D 17, 125). Fur-
ther, a son could steal from his father and mother (SHD 4.90, 195–196;
Hulsewé 1985a: D 86, 148; SHD 4.94, 197–198; Hulsewé (1985a) D
89, 149–150),20 and a wife could hold property separately from her hus-
band. Finally, a slave and slave-woman were considered to have robbed
their master when they robbed their master’s parents only when the
parents were actually living with the master as household members or
co-residents. If the parents lived separately, the slaves were not deemed
to have robbed their masters (SHD 4.18, 159–160; Hulsewé 1985a: D
18, 125–126).21
From this evidence, we may deduce that property rights in ancient
China were based to a large extent upon a) blood relationship and b)
co-residence, at least in Qin. The property of the wife is presumably
her dowry and as such was kept legally separate from the property of
her husband. In the case in which her husband commits a crime and
she denounces him before the authorities are aware of its commission,
her property is not to be confiscated by the government (SHD 4.151,
224; Hulsewé 1985a: D149, 169). Similarly, if a wife commits a crime
for which she is arrested, it is stipulated that her maidservants (ying 媵 ),
slaves, clothes and utensils are to be given (bi 畀 ) to her husband, rather
than being confiscated (SHD 4.152, 224–225; Hulsewé 1985a: D 150,
169).
The father possessed a kind of patria potestas over his children in the
matter of property, just as he had the power of life and death over
them, as we have seen above. But to define slaves in ancient China just
in terms of property is insufficient and we must adopt a more satisfac-
tory definition, if we are to understand the nature of slavery and its full
social significance in that society.
19
There are many examples in the Qin laws, but note especially SHD 5.11: 255–56;
Hulsewé 1985a: E12, 190–91; McLeod and Yates (1981): 5.11, 142–44, where a gongshi
公士 , a person of the lowest rank in the social hierarchy above a commoner, is robbed
of 10,000 cash.
20
The latter passage specifies that the father and son are “co-residents” (tongju 同居).
21
These rules relating to foster-fathers and to master’s parents possibly reflect Lord
Shang’s attempts to break the power and solidarity of the family by emending the law
in Qin to hold that no more than one adult child could live together with its parents
under the same roof.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 297

Before we pass on to discuss a more adequate definition of slavery,


I should like to note that under Qin law, parents could not arbitrarily
kill their children, for we find another item of the law stating that such
murder would be punished with tattooing of the face and the cheng-
dan hard labor sentence for both father and mother (SHD 4.58, 181;
Hulsewé 1985a: D 56, 139; cf. Reed 2000).22 It is in the case where a
child robs its parents that the latter may kill it in revenge (SHD 4.90,
195–196; Hulsewé 1985a: D 86, 148).23 Undoubtedly, however, the
authorities would investigate the matter to make sure that a robbery
had indeed taken place, and that the parents were not liable for murder.
Even infanticide was punished as murder, if the child had been killed
solely because the family was already too large. But children who were
considered “not whole” (buquan 不全 ) could be killed with impunity.
And parents could kill or punish their children for showing lack of filial
piety (xiao 孝 ).
Qin law also stated that a slave (rennu 人奴 ) would be punished in the
same way as non-slaves for killing his child, the only difference being
that after he had served his term of hard labor, he would be returned
to his owner (SHD 4.61, 183; Hulsewé 1985a: D 59, 140). It is remark-
able that even in this case the state claimed the authority to punish the
guilty slave and it is not the slave owner who possesses sole rights over
his property and has the sole right to punish the murderer. In this way,
the child of a slave, has the same protection under the law as a free
individual.

2. Slaves as Dominated Non-Persons


I would like to pass on to what I consider to be a more adequate defini-
tion of slavery for the Chinese case, because it is more culture-oriented,
that of Orlando Patterson. He concludes that “property is indeed an
important (though secondary) factor in defining both the legal and
the socio-economic status of the slave, with this critical difference: the
slave was a slave not because he was the object of property but because
he could not be the subject of property” (Patterson 1982: 28). In other
words, a slave was a slave because he could not own property: all he
had possession of was, in fact, the property of his master. The master
merely allowed him to make use of the property the slave possessed; the
slave could never claim to be the owner of that property. The Marxist
theoreticians Hindess and Hirst also argue that “slaves cannot own
22
The length of hard labor was probably five years. The woman’s punishment was
called chong 舂 “pounding grain.”
23
Hulsewé actually translates this item, “[w]hen a child robs his father or mother,
or when a father or mother unauthorizedly kill, mutilate or shave their children as well
as their male or female slaves, these are not cases of official denunciation.”
298 ROBIN D . S . YATES

the means of production (or possess them) — ownership is confined to


freemen/non-labourers” (Hindess and Hirth 1975: 127). Nevertheless,
in late imperial China, it does appear that slaves could own property, as
Meijer argues against several scholars, including Boulais (Meijer 1980:
336; Boulais 1924: section 362). Is it appropriate to call them slaves?
Niida Noboru observes that in the Yuan 元 dynasty slaves could
own slaves and that is possible that the term for such “double slaves”
(chongtai 重臺 ) originates in the list of statuses presented in the Zuozhuan
左傳 (Duke Zhao 昭公 year 5) where the lowest status is given as tai
臺 . It is, unfortunately, not possible to determine whether slaves owned
slaves in the Spring and Autumn period, since the material relating to
the lower orders in those times is extremely meager. Niida also points
out that, under the Northern, Sui, and Tang dynasties, slaves were also
given fields (tian 田 ) orchards (yuan 園 ) and houses by the state, but in
my opinion the slaves merely possessed this property at state discretion,
they did not own it, for the state continued to maintain the ultimate
right of ownership.24 Even if slaves owned slaves, therefore, they did
not own the means of production stricto sensu. Nevertheless, it would be
remiss not to mention the fact that the Qin slave who is denounced to
the government for the crime of being a scold (han 悍 ) and not obey-
ing his master’s orders, was required to have his possessions sealed and
guarded (fengshou 封守 ). This procedure was demanded for all those
under investigation for a crime, regardless whether they were free or
unfree. This may imply that the Qin slave had possessions over which
he had control, but since the document does not state what actually
belonging to the slave was confiscated by the government, it is difficult
to draw conclusions about this matter (SHD 4.14, 259–260; Hulsewé
1985a: E 15, 193–194; McLeod and Yates 1981: 5.14, 146–147). This
is a crucial point to which we will return below.
On the level of human relations, Patterson offers the following
definition of slavery. I will use it as a basis to examine in greater detail
the nature of the institution and social process of slavery that can be
inferred in the light of present knowledge and from the documentation
of late pre-imperial and early imperial China. His definition is “slavery
is the permanent, violent domination of natally alienated and generally
dishonored persons” (Patterson 1982: 13).
What is meant by “natally alienated and generally dishonored per-
sons” in the ancient Chinese context? Let us first consider the evidence
from the Discourses on Salt and Iron (Yantielun 鹽鐵論 ), supposedly a record
of a debate held at the Han court in 81 b.c.e. between the legalists led by
the financial expert Sang Hongyang 桑弘羊 (cf. Wu Hui 1981) and the
24
For a broad analysis of slaves in the Tang, see Li Jiping (1986), but he does not
seem to consider the issue that concerns me here.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 299

Confucians on government policy, particularly that of the monopolies


on salt, iron, and alcoholic beverages. The debate expanded to cover all
topics, both in foreign relations and in domestic matters (Loewe 1974),
and in one of the last chapters the matter of punishments was argued.
Naturally, Sang Hongyang advocates the use of punishments to stop
corruption, whereas his Confucian antagonists prefer moral inculcation.
We put aside the details of the debate and concentrate on two state-
ments made on either side, for they are crucial for understanding the
way in which slaves and convicts were conceptualized in early China.
Sang Hongyang begins his comments by declaring, “In the Spring
and Autumn Annals (of Confucius), criminals lack names and appella-
tions (wu minghao 無名號 ). They are referred to as bandits. The reason
was to debase (jian 賤 ) those who were punished (xingren 刑人 ) and to cut
them off from human relationships (renlun 人倫 )” (Lin Zhenhan 1934,
pian 57 “Zhou Qin”: 189). And the Confucians note that gentlemen
(junzi 君子 ) do not approach criminals (xingren 刑人 ) because criminals
are not human (xingren fei ren ye 刑人非人也 ).
At first glance, both statements may strike one as bizarre and ex-
traordinary, but in fact this is not so. Humans are humans because they
are tied into a network of kin relationships which constitute the world
of social life and which define their social being, and in China humans
are humans because of the direct line and link between themselves and
their ancestors or ascendants and their offspring or descendants. A slave
and a criminal in early traditional China lost his rights and obligations
and relations to his family, both his parents and his children. He was a
socially dead person.25
All punishment involved some form of mutilation from the lightest
punishment that of shaving the beard and whiskers through to the
more serious mutilations of shaving the head, cutting off the nose, a
foot, or castration. These were accompanied in Qin and Han times by
terms of hard labor service varying from one to five or six years, in my
interpretation.26 By this mutilation, even in the cutting off of the facial
whiskers, the individual was rendered unwhole and therefore polluting
and unable to serve at and participate in the religious observances of
ancestor worship. Thus the individual was essentially cut off from all
family ties. It is for this reason that the Confucians in the Discourses on
Salt and Iron say that criminals are not human.
Further evidence for this interpretation can be gathered from the
item in the Qin law that I have already quoted: a deformed (not whole)
25
The term is Izard’s (Meillassoux 1975: 22).
26
There is considerable disagreement on the question of length of the Qin hard labor
punishments: some scholars even argue that hard labor was for life. Hulsewé, (1985a:
16–17), believes that the length was the same as that in the Han period because the
histories record no changes. Such an interpretation is quite possible.
300 ROBIN D . S . YATES

(buquan 不全 ) child can be killed by its parents with impunity because


it is, in fact, in Chinese social terms, not human. And we find in the
Zuozhuan a case in which a lame elder brother is barred from inheriting
his father’s rank for precisely the same reason: he is not human (fei ren
ye 非人也 ), or considered a member of the clan (cf. Gassman) and so
cannot serve at the ancestral altars (Hung 1966, vol. 1: 367; Zuozhuan
Duke Zhao year 7, 535 bc).

Slavery as Social Process

What, then, of slaves? Cross-culturally speaking, Patterson has noted


that there are generally eight ways in which a free person can undergo
the institutional process of enslavement (Patterson 1982: 105):
1. capture in warfare
2. kidnapping
3. tribute and tax payment
4. debt
5. punishment for crimes
6. abandonment and sale of children
7. self-enslavement
8. birth
Patterson observes that in China the only legal means of enslavement
was the first way, capture in warfare (cf. Yu Haoliang 1985a), and that
prisoners of war were first assimilated to the status of convicts before
being enslaved. Roman speculation on the origins and nature of slavery
also emphasizes this point. A conflict was seen to exist between the ius
gentium (law of nations) and the ius naturale (natural law), for the latter
posited that all men were naturally equal. Slaves were not equal because
they were captured in war between nations. As. W.W. Buckland (1908: 1)
trenchantly observes, “[c]aptives, it is said, may be slain: to make them
slaves is to save their lives; hence they are called servi ut servati and thus
both names, servus and mancipium are derived from capture in war.” It
was, in fact, because the Shang (second millennium bc) obviously en-
gaged in frequent raids on their neighbors, particularly the Qiang 羌 ,
to acquire victims for sacrifice to their ancestors and to accompany the
dead Shang kings and aristocrats that many scholars have argued that
the Shang was a slave state which used their victims as productive labor
in addition to killing them. Perhaps, however, “slaves” in the Shang can
be seen as a form of wealth to be destroyed on appropriate ritual occa-
sions, much as the northwest coast American Indians often engaged in
orgies of slave killing in their potlatches to gain prestige among their
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 301

communities (Kan 1989). I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence


as yet to compare the number of genuine slaves in the work-force to
other categories of forced labor to determine whether there really was
a slave mode of production, however that be defined in Marxist terms,
in Shang times.27
I would rather concentrate on the Warring States and Qin periods to
illuminate the question of the relation between convicts and slaves and
to examine the role this forced labor played in the economy of those
times and thereby determine whether it is valid to posit the existence
of a slave mode of production in ancient China.28
For the Han dynasty, Wilbur (1943: 80–85) draws the distinction
between convicts (tu 徒 ) and slaves (nubi 奴婢 ). Pulleyblank (1958: 201),
on the other hand, ventures the conjecture that the distinction “would
be, not that the slaves were subject to less severe treatment, but that
their bondage was perpetual, extending to their offspring, whereas that
of convicts (not presumably those guilty of crimes for which the law
of shounu 收奴 (the arrest and enslavement of offenders’ wives and
children) was imposed — the principals in those cases would have been
executed) was, if we may judge from Han practice, limited to a period
of years.”

27
Keightley 1969: Appendix 1 “Slavery in the Shang Dynasty,” 357–79), effectively
dispenses with the arguments advanced by Guo Moruo (1973) and others that certain
groups of forced laborers in the Shang can be identified with slaves, even though there
are some discrepancies between the definitions of the terms employed by him and the
ones that I am accepting in the present paper. Keightley analyzes the terms nu 奴 , pu 僕 ,
chen 臣 , qie 妾 , and zai 宰 as they appear in the oracle bone inscriptions, because these
terms come to be applied to servile and semi-servile statuses in later times. He shows
that Guo has misread the two inscriptions which purport to mention the word nu and
that the element in the ancient graph , which is the modern xin 辛 , may represent
a decorative tail: thus pu probably refers to a figure of relatively high status dressed
in ritual garb. Pu therefore has nothing to do with slaves. With regard to zai 宰 , Guo
argued that they were of the same status as chen 臣 which shows that, since the latter
were slaves, so were the former. In fact, Guo has once again misread the relevant graph
, which may in fact be the ancient form of kou 寇 and probably refers to high status
army officers. As for qie 妾 , Shima Kunio (1958: 337, 482) has shown that they were
“shamaness participants in the ritual of ancestor worship.” But even if they were sac-
rificial victims, this does not prove that they were slaves in the strict sense of the term.
Finally, with regard to chen 臣 , Guo argued that the archaic graph represents an eye in
the vertical position, indicating a prisoner of war with bowed head, and therefore chen
were slaves. Nevertheless, the inscriptional evidence suggests that the xiaochen 小臣 were
rather “members of the royal administration who performed the king’s orders by leading
the peasantry in various tasks” (Keightley, 1969: 369). Keightley concludes that there
is no evidence that Shang state labor employed slavery, or that people were owned like
property, nor any concerning the tasks prisoners of war were forced to perform, even
though perhaps some of them became human sacrificial victims. Finally, there is no
evidence concerning the percentage of the population that was free as opposed to slave.
The conclusion is clear: Shang was based not on slave labor but on forced labor.
28
See Li Hengmei (1999) for a recent discussion of slaves in Spring and Autumn
times, including their origin, status, and occupations.
302 ROBIN D . S . YATES

The important point to remember is that enslavement was always


thought to originate in being a substitute for death, archetypically death
in war, or the death commuted was a capital offense, or from misery,
starvation, and exposure. Slavery was a conditional commutation, not
a pardon from this death: as Katrina McLeod and I have pointed out
elsewhere (McLeod and Yates 1981: 136, note 67; cf. McKnight 1981),
she 赦 in ancient Chinese did not mean an amnesty in the sense of a
complete forgetting (amnesia) of the crime, only a conditional remis-
sion. It is this notion that lies behind the treatment of slaves as outsiders,
subject to the total domination, exploitation, and disposition of their
masters.
This belief is apparent in the richly symbolic ritual of surrender in
war in the Spring and Autumn period as recounted in the Zuozhuan of
which there seems to be two types, but which both indicate that the
defeated considered himself dead (Yang Ximei 1956). In one case, the
defeated Baron of Xu 許男 presents himself to his captor, the Viscount
of Chu 楚子 , bound, and holding a jade bi 璧 disc in his mouth, while
his lords (daifu 大夫 ) are dressed in mourning clothes and his knights
(shi 士 ) bear his coffin (Hung 1966, vol. 1: 97; Duke Xi 喜公 , year 6).
The jade disc was usually placed in the mouth of a corpse prior to
interment. In another case, the Earl of Zheng 鄭伯 , vanquished by
Chu, with shoulder bare as in mourning and leading a goat, says to his
captor that if the latter wishes to enslave Zheng’s people (chenqie zhi 臣
妾之 ), it will be his command, and he admits that he had committed
a crime (zui 罪 ) against Chu by not serving it (Hung 1966: vol. 1, 195;
Duke Xuan 宣公 year 12). Liao Meiyun (1995: 19–24) has pointed out
that many of the women captured in warfare in Spring and Autumn
and Warring States times became government musicians and slaves
concerned with the preparation and serving of wine and food. But,
as will be seen below, those whom the state of Qin captured in war in
the fourth and third centuries bc, if they were not massacred, became
convicts, not slaves.

Slaves in the Qin Laws

It is now necessary to examine in greater detail the evidence of convict


and slave status in the Qin laws, though the data cannot be treated
exhaustively, especially that relating to convicts, since there is such an
abundance of it.
First of all, there is no mention of self-enslavement, kidnapping,
abandonment and sale of children, and tribute and tax payment of
slaves in these documents. A case of kidnapping, however, is recorded
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 303

in the contemporaneous Zhuangzi 莊子 , where the robbers cut off the


foot of their victim, because, so mutilated, he will be easier to sell (Guo
Qingfan 1978: j. 8B, 860). In addition, it is highly likely that, in the
chaotic social conditions of the third century bc during the wars that led
up to the Qin conquest and unification of China, as well as during the
collapse of the Qin dynasty ten years later, many robber bands roamed
the countryside, preying on the unfortunate populace and selling them
into slavery for their own profit. This was a feature of the Han and
later dynasties: whenever the central government broke down and the
laws against this highly profitable activity were unable or unwilling to
be enforced (Wilbur 1943: 90–92). During the wars accompanying the
overthrow of the Qin, economic conditions in fact reached such a pass,
with severe famine hitting many areas, that Emperor Gaozu 高祖 of
the Han issued an order permitting the sale of children and allowing
the parents to migrate to safety in Sichuan (Wilbur 1943: 266; Wang
Xianqian n.d.: j. 24, 9b; cf. Appendix). It is probable that the Zhuo 卓
family, who were exiled there by the Qin when they captured the state
of Zhao, the Zhuo’s homeland, in 228 bc, gained many of the slaves,
on whose labor they built their famous iron mining and casting fortune,
as a result of this order (Wilbur 1943: 259; Wang Xianqian n.d.: j. 91,
8b).
With regard to enslavement for debt, which was a common way in
the later period in which poor families fell into bondage in times of great
economic hardship,29 the Qin laws had the stipulation that a creditor
could not forcibly seize the guarantee (zhi 質 ) of the debt in lieu of
payment. Such creditors and those debtors who of their own accord
handed over the guarantee were fined two sets of armor, a very heavy
cash fine, but the precise cash equivalent of which is unknown. Here
the guarantee was probably, in fact, a person (SHD 4.129, 214–215;
Hulsewé 1985a: D 126:162.30 Such pawns in the Han, if not redeemed
within three years, were permanently enslaved, at least in the Huainan
淮南 region (cf. Ru Shun’s 如淳 comment on Wang Xianqian n.d.: j.
64A “Yan Zhu zhuan 嚴助傳 ,” 4a).
The other three methods of enslavement listed by Patterson, capture
in warfare, punishment for crimes, and birth, are also to be found in
early China. In the Han, the normal general term for convict, as has
been mentioned, was tu 徒 and that of male slave nu 奴 and female slave
bi 婢 although there are several other terms of lesser importance that

29
Watson (1980c: 223) notes that in the later traditional period nearly every peasant
household was affected by slavery, and most of the slaves were sold because of extreme
poverty.
30
Hulsewé does not venture an opinion as to whether the pledge is to be understood
as a person or as an object.
304 ROBIN D . S . YATES

need not be of concern here (Wilbur 1943: 64–71; Li Xinda 1978). In


the Qin legal documents, however, the terms are different. Tu occurs
seven times, as far as I can determine, with only two of them possibly
having the meaning of “convict,”31 and there are two ways of indicating
slave status: rennu 人奴 , renchen 人臣 , or chen 臣 for a man, and renqie 人
妾 or qie 妾 for a woman. The former means “a person’s male slave or
servant” and the latter “a person’s female slave or servant.” The Han
term for female slave (bi 婢 ) does not appear.
In addition, the hard labor punishments of “watchman” (hou 候 ),
“robber guard” (sikou 司寇 ), “collector of firewood for sacrifices to the
spirits” (guixin 鬼薪 ) for males and “sorters of rice” (baican 白粲 ) for
females, and “builders of walls from early dawn” (chengdan 城旦 ) for
males and “pounders of rice” (chong 舂 ) for females also appear. All
these labor terms are known from the Han except the first and lightest
“watchman.” Possibly this punishment died with the Qin.
There are two more terms li 隸 “bondsman,” probably a general
term for “servant” or “slave,” and lichenqie 隸臣妾 “male and female
bondservant.” The latter appear with great frequency and the Qin state
seems to have relied very heavily on them for every type of productive
and non-productive labor, from work in the fields, in foundries and
workshops, to tending pasture animals, to fighting in the army and
acting as prison warders.
The major question that has divided scholars of these new documents
is this: are these bondservants slaves or are they convicts? Were they a
permanent hereditary status, or were they convicts serving a fixed term,
or a life term (cf. Tang Zangong)? If we can resolve these questions, we
can determine to a far greater extent than hitherto possible whether
there was a slave mode of production in the Qin and Warring States,
or whether slavery and/or convict labor played an important role in the
economy of the Qin and Warring States social formation. There is no
doubt that the evidence is conflicting, so before I discuss the question,
let me review the data on the status that can be definitely understood as
slave, rennuchen 人奴臣 and renchenqie 人臣妾 . These individuals, Gong
31
SHD 1 Gong 4: 70–71; Hulsewé (1985a), A 55, 58–59, and SHD 1 Yao 1: 76–80.
Hulsewé (1985a: A 46, 63) translates the latter rule, “When levying conscripts for work
inside a settlement, order is given to guarantee the earth walls for a full year.” In three
other passages, the term refers to the workers at the lowest level in craft workshops and
stables, hence it could mean convicts or free laborers. See SHD I Jiuyuan 3: 33 (Hulsewé
1985a, A 9, 27–30, especially note 21, 29–30); SHD 3.11 and 3.12, 136–38 (Hulsewé
1985a C 11 and C 12, 110). In another case, it refers to soldiers on guard in the palace
grounds who are responsible for killing marauding tigers (SHD 3.16, 140–141; Hulsewé
1985a: C 16, 112–13), and in another, also some type of infantry guards (SHD 3.21,
144–145; Hulsewé 1985a: C 21, 116). Finally, in SHD 4.160, 229, it refers to some
kind of guard for state ambassadors. Hulsewé (1985a: D 159, 172–173) finds this item
extremely hard to understand.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 305

Changwei and Song Min (1982) have argued, are private slaves in con-
trast to lichenqie bondservants, whom they interpret as state slaves.
People in this type of status were considered to be property of their
owners and not human in the social sense, yet at the same time, they
were definitely held responsible for their crimes and punished by the
government, and were not considered to be suffering from diminished
capacity in the legal sense. Crimes mentioned include beating their mas-
ters (zhu 主 ) (SHD 4.63; Hulsewé (1985a: 169), raping them (presumably
this applied primarily to mistresses) (SHD 4.63; Hulsewé 1985a: 169),32
secretly planning to murder their masters (SHD 4.64, 184; Hulsewé
1985a: D 60, 140), planning to steal their master’s ox, selling it, taking
the proceeds, and fleeing the state (SHD 4.4, 152–153; Hulsewé 1985a:
D 4,122), unauthorizedly killing their child (SHD 4.61, 183; Hulsewé
1985a: D 59,140), beating their child so that it dies of its wounds (SHD
4.62, 163; Hulsewé 1985a: D 62, 140–142),33 robbery (SHD 4.18,
159–160; Hulsewé 1985a: D 18, 125–126; SHD 4.122: 211; Hulsewé
1985a: D 119, 159–160),34 and finally being a scold (han 悍 ) and refus-
ing to work in the master’s fields.35 It is important to note that the state
claimed the right to punish such delinquent slaves, even though their
masters could mete out the punishment themselves. This was one more
way in which the Qin state tried to dominate all members of society
and gain exclusive control over their lives.
In addition to being punished, slaves could be sold to the government
at the fair market price. In one case, the slave has his foot cut off, and
is made a chengdan forced laborer (SHD 5.14, 259–260; Hulsewé 1985a:
E 15, 193–194; McLeod and Yates 1981: 5.14, 146–147). However, he
first has to state that he has never been manumitted, is not sick, and is
not liable for any other crime. The lingshi 令使 a low official in charge

32
The punishments for beating and raping the master/mistress were the same, but
not stated in the documents. The punishments meted out to the slave in Qin times for
the crimes of beating, raping, and planning the murder of the master/mistress were
probably comparable to those in the Qing dynasty. Immediate decapitation was the
punishment for beating the master and fornication with the master’s main wife or his
daughter, with strangulation after the assizes for such fornication with a master’s con-
cubine. (Meijer 1980: 335).
33
The slave is tattooed on the forehead and cheekbones and then returned to the
master; no hard labor is stipulated.
34
In the latter case, it is stated that it is the state that rewards the individual who ar-
rests a male or female slave for stealing 110 cash, rather than the owner who rewards
him.
35
SHD 5.14, 259–260; Hulsewé 1985a: E 15, 193–194; McLeod and Yates 1981:
5.14, 146–147, where a male slave is a scold and refuses to work in the fields. SHD
5.15: 260–61; Hulsewé 1985a: E 16, 194–195; McLeod and Yates 1981: 5.15, 147–148,
where a female slave confesses that she is a scold, but her occupation is not given. Being
a “scold” was one of the seven legitimate causes for divorce in traditional law (Johnson
1997: 167, Article 189, subcommentary).
306 ROBIN D . S . YATES

of records (Yu Haoliang 1985b: 109) makes a medical examination of


the slave and certifies his state of health. The shaonei 少內 treasurer
and his assistant determine the price and make the transaction.36 It was
important to prove that the slave had not been freed and then forcibly
re-enslaved, because, as we know from a Han source, if such was the
case, the owner had committed a serious offence.37 In the Qin, the au-
thorities ask the slave himself about his status, not trusting the word of
the owner. The price of the slave would also, of course, depend upon
his health, hence the medical examination.
The appearance of the term “fair market price” confirms the fact
that the Qin had slave markets, as Wang Mang claimed, a state of affairs
also recorded in the Zhouli 周禮 where people renmin 人民 are noted
as saleable items (Sun Yirang 1983: vol. 2 j. 27, 11b; Biot 1969: vol. 1,
317; Pulleyblank 1958 192–193). In the Qin, all items on sale above
the value of one cash were required to have a price tag (SHD 1 Jinbu 5,
57; Hulsewé 1985a: A 46, 53), and therefore undoubtedly slaves wore
such tags when they went on sale. A humorous story in the Hanfeizi 韓
非子 records that a female slave in Wei 衛 cost more than 100 rolls of
cloth (Wang Xianshen 1956: ce 3, pian 31, 5; W.K. Liao 1959: vol. 2,
8). In the Qin, a roll of cloth, which was an important form of cur-
rency, was stated to be the equivalent of 11 cash (SHD 1 Jinbu 3, 56;
Hulsewé 1985a: A 44, 52–53). Thus a female slave could have cost,
at this exchange rate, over 1100 cash, depending on her age, state of
health, and general disposition.
The value of slaves in the Han dynasty was much higher. In the record
of a law case dating from 196 bc translated in the Appendix to this essay,
a woman was bought, probably sometime during the Qin period, for
16,000 cash. This price is confirmed in the fragmentary evidence from
the Juyan 居延 wooden slips, where we find that it cost 20,000 cash for
one adult female, and a non-adult male was worth 15,000 cash. Other
evidence suggests a cost of 20,000 to 30,000 per adult slave (Xu Yangjie
1981: 169).
As can be seen from the above, a person could not only be a slave,
but she/he could also be a convict for having committed a crime. In
5.14 “Denouncing a Slave” mentioned above, the slave is sold to the
government and made a chengdan forced laborer. In 5.15 “Denouncing
a Female Slave,” the female slave has her nose cut off by the authorities

36
Hulsewé (1978: 199) and (1985a: A 40, 50, note 9) has demonstrated that the sha-
onei treasuries were part of the metropolitan and regional governmental organization,
being attached to all organs that were involved in financial transactions.
37
Su Yiwu 蘇夷吾 , marquis of Pu 蒲侯 , had his marquisate abolished for this reason
in 18 bc (Hongjia 鴻嘉 year 3) (Wang Xianqian n.d.: j. 17: 25b; Wilbur, 1943: no. 102,
419).
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 307

and is tattooed. Another case in the slips refers to slaves being mutilated,
being made chengdan convicts and then being returned to their masters
(SHD 4.4, 152–153; Hulsewé 1985a: D 4, 122). This surely indicates
that the forced labor punishment was for a fixed period of time, and
therefore convicts cannot have served life sentences, and thus were not
structurally equivalent to slaves, as some scholars have maintained. It
should also be noted that the Qin permitted their convicts to return
to their homes to perform essential agricultural duties at appropriate
times of the year. No mention of slaves is made in this connection, and
therefore it is unclear whether their masters could petition to have their
slaves returned to them on these occasions. That this was possible, I
consider to be quite unlikely.
Slaves could also be used by their masters in the same way as oxen
and horses to be held by the government to pay off their fines and debts.
To be the owner of slaves was thus additionally beneficial. Such slaves
had to wear red clothes, be shackled, and be supervised, if they were
held to work with the chengdan and chong forced laborers (SHD 1 Sikong
12, 84–87; Hulsewé 1985a: A 68, 67–71), just like other chengdan convicts
who were originally of free status (SHD 1 Sikong 12, 89–90; Hulsewé
1985a: A 70, 72–73), and like guixin collectors of firewood and baican
sorters of grain convicts and a status called qunxiali 群下吏 , who had
not suffered the punishment of shaving the whiskers (SHD 1 Sikong 12,
84–87; Hulsewé 1985a: A 68, 67–71). On the other hand, individuals
of the lowest aristocratic rank gongshi 公士 and commoners (shiwu 士伍 ),
who were being held to redeem mutilating punishments and the death
penalty and who were held for chengdan and chong labor, did not have to
suffer the indignity of wearing red clothes and being shackled.38
This difference between slaves and regular “free” convicts redeeming
their crimes or fines is of utmost importance, in my opinion, to see the
difference between slave and convict status. The Qin obviously drew
a careful distinction between redeemable crimes and non-redeemable
crimes and between regular convicts and slaves. Slaves were treated in
the same manner as individuals serving non-redeemable heavy labor
sentences, but at the same time the term “non-redeemable” must be
understood not as meaning that the convict never ended his term, that
his labor was for life, but rather that the redeemable crimes could be
paid off in cash all at once if the criminal had the financial resources.
If he lacked the means, he was held until he paid off the crime. The
rate was fixed at 8 cash per day, 6 cash if the convict received food

38
Hulsewé (1985a: 69, note 10) observes that the phrase “gongshi or less 公士以下 ”
probably refers to gongshi and commoners (shiwu), but this would be rather remark-
able.
308 ROBIN D . S . YATES

from the government (SHD I Sikong 12, 84–87; Hulsewé 1985a: A 68,
67–71). In other words, in a 365 day year, the convict would pay off
2920 cash or 2190 cash, which would work out as 97.3 piculs (shi 石 )
or 73 piculs of grain, since the price of grain was fixed at 30 cash per
picul. Unfortunately, it is nowhere stated what the cash equivalent of
the various hard labor service punishments were, but if, as I believe,
the labor terms ran from one to five years for the watchmen through
to the chengdan the minimum might be 2920 or 2190 to a maximum of
14,600 to 10,950, a very large sum for the average commoner to pay
all at once.
We might note, however, that the government of the Qin state must
have benefited immensely from this practice of cash payment, for if it
did not acquire the forced labor of the criminals, then it received lump
sums of cash, which it could then put to good use to increase its military
and public works budgets and enable it to field large armies for years at
a time and pay for the construction of huge public works, such as the
Great Wall, the First Emperor’s tomb and the many palaces in the Wei
river 渭河 valley.
A further point with regard to slave status is that the wives of slaves
were apparently not graced with the term that meant legitimate wife,
qi 妻 , they are always referred to as qie 妾 “concubine.” This is of great
significance, for it is a practice common to other slave systems through-
out the world (Patterson 1982: 186–190). Slaves are slaves because they
are cut off from rights and obligations of family and their unions are
not recognized as legitimate and binding on the rest of society. Their
“families” could be separated by their owners entirely at their owners’
discretion, although, in general, slave owners kept such families together
to encourage better performance of duties.39 In the Qin, evidently slave
unions were recognized, because they were recognized as parents who
could kill their children. Yet in the customs of the time only legitimate
wives could perform duties in the sacrificial rites to their husbands’
ancestors, concubines could not. It is for this reason that I say that
slave unions were recognized, but were not considered legitimate: con-
cubinage was, however, condoned for the free population, and so slave
unions were assimilated to this secondary form of marriage.
As mentioned above, another important item quoted in section 4
of the legal documents states that if a husband commits a crime and
his wife denounces him first, before the authorities learn of the crime,
she is not subject to the law of arrest (shou 收 ) and her male and female

39
Harrison (1968: 177) remarks that in the case of Athens “although relatively
permanent unions were in fact formed between slaves it is very doubtful whether these
had any juristic validity” (cf. Fogel and Engerman 1974: 49 and 142–144).
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 309

slaves and maidservants (ying 媵 ), who accompanied her to her husband’s


home, are also not confiscated. And if the wife commits a crime, her
maidservants and slaves, clothes, and utensils (presumably her dowry)
are not forfeited either, but given to her husband. This indicates that
wives, although in some respects property of their husbands, were able
to hold property independent of them and that confiscation of prop-
erty on the commission of a crime was not automatic. A husband or
wife could retain the property of their spouse if they denounced them
first. No doubt, however, a number of slaves in the Qin government’s
hands were originally private slaves confiscated when people failed to
denounce their spouses.
It is also clear that the government gave gifts of slaves (chenqie 臣妾 ) to
private individuals for meritorious deeds. In the documents, it is recorded
that someone who catches a person sending a written communication
to the enemy is given two such slaves, male and/or female (SHD 4.44,
174–175; Hulsewé 1985a: D 43, 134–135).40 In this case, government
slaves became private slaves. In addition, under Lord Shang’s laws, a
person could receive grades of rank and an appropriate number of
slaves (li) as a reward for cutting off heads in battle (Zhu Shiche 1974:
73; Duyvendak 1963: 298). Another passage states that prisoners of
war were given to successful officers, which leads us back to one of the
modes of enslavement mentioned earlier (Wang Xianqian n.d.: ch. 23,
7b; Hulsewé 1955: 327; Takigawa 1979: j. 68: 9; Duyvendak 1963:15;
Zhu Shiche 1974: j. 5 pian 19,79; Duyvendak 1963: 299–300). But before
we turn to this issue and that of the so-called bondservants (lichenqie 隸
臣妾 ), I want to make a few more remarks about slaves.
Another of the major sources of Qin slaves must have been birth.
Many Qin chenqie slaves may have been the descendants of the chenqie
recorded in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions as being transferred be-
tween the Zhou ruling house and other members of the Zhou aristoc-
racy.41 It is impossible, however, to determine the extent to which Zhou

40
I adopt Hulsewé’s explanation of the term toushu 投書 because it makes better
sense in the context in contrast to that of the SHD editors who interpret the term as
“to lodge an anonymous complaint.”
41
Keightley (1969:210–216) argues that these chenqie were not slaves in his definition
of the term, even though they were originally captured by the Western Zhou aristocratic
rulers. The reasons are that chen were never transferred as individuals but in groups
or families (jia 家 ) and that geographical names were frequently attached to them,
indicating “that we are dealing with groups of people whose previous social organiza-
tion or regional location took precedence over their status as ch’en. In other words, the
ch’en’s primary ties were to their family units and to the land” (213). The term chenqie
certainly appears in the Zuozhuan and I would argue that there is a strong possibility
that, with the development of the beginnings of a commodity market system in the late
Spring and Autumn and early Warring States periods, these chenqie began to be sold as
individuals. Huang Ranwei (1978) doubts the interpretation of the terms as indicators
310 ROBIN D . S . YATES

slaves reproduced themselves and therefore to make any conclusions at


all about breeding practices and the extent to which the slave popula-
tion of those times reproduced itself. Therefore fundamental questions
about the economic viability of the slave system cannot be answered.
This is regrettable given the advances that have been achieved in this
aspect in studies of the slave system in the Western hemisphere. The data
regarding this issue is also lacking for the rest of the imperial period.
Quite clearly it must have been relatively easy for free members of
Warring States society to fall into servile status by the methods we have
already discussed because in the almanac texts (rishu) there are a num-
ber of passages which indicate what will happen to children born on a
particular day: some days are lucky, some days unlucky. The almanac
texts express the fears of Qin parents. For example, slips 1138–1139
state that to bear children on the renyin 壬寅 day was unlucky or in-
auspicious: a girl born on this day would become a doctor (Yunmeng
Shuihudi Qinmu Bianxiezu 1981: plate 164), and children born on the
jisi 己巳 and dingwei 丁未 days were thought to grow up to be slaves. I
am not sure exactly why these days were considered so inauspicious.
Perhaps it had something to do with beliefs in word magic. But it is not
impossible that children born on these days would have been killed if
the parents thought that they could avoid prosecution by the authorities
for murder (Yunmeng Shuihudi Qinmu Bianxiezu 1981: slips 1139 and
1142; plate 128, slip 874).42
Again, some days were considered inauspicious for bringing slaves
and lodgers (jiren 寄人 ) into a house, for it was believed that within a
short period they would replace their masters.43 It would seem that these
disadvantaged individuals could gain rights and obligations quite easily.
Slaves could also gain their freedom by having their relatives redeem

of geographical origin, rather believing them to be types of servants (chenpu 臣僕 ) (cf.


Chen Hanping 1988: 259–60; Musha 1980). Liu Weimin (1975: 118–22) considers
the evidence from bronze inscriptions as well as literary texts and concludes that they,
together with the various other types of low-grade workers, were some kind of forced
laborer. For another analysis based on a comparative perspective, see Hu Liuyuan and
Feng Zhuohui (1988: 317–415).
42
Perhaps the reason for these prognostications lies in the beliefs associated with
word magic. The graph ding 丁 meant an individual” and wei 未 “not yet”: the complete
term dingwei 丁未 might have been thought to indicate that the person would not exist.
Actually, trees (mu 木 ) were not supposed to be watered (澍 ) — perhaps the graph is an
alternative form for shu 樹 “planted” — on wei 未 days because the graph is a representa-
tion of a tree with a cut across the trunk. Perhaps they thought that such a tree would
come to no good end (Yunmeng Shuihudi Qinmu bianxiezu 1981: plate 126, slip 853). Ji
己 , on the other hand, meant “self ” and si 巳 sounded like si 死 “die,” indicating that
the self would die if born on that day.
43
Yunmeng Shuihudi Qinmu Bianxiezu 1981: plate 120, slip 786, reads, “Do not
bring lodgers in on xinyou 辛酉 days; if you bring in lodgers, they will inevitably take
over living in the residence.”
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 311

them with cash or equivalent goods. Indeed, according to Liu Xiang’s


劉向 Shuoyuan 說苑 in the mid-Han, the state of Lu 魯 in Confucius’
day provided funds from the state treasury to redeem Lu slaves held in
other states, but whether this was a common practice throughout China
is unclear (Liu Xiang n.d.: j. 7: 23ab).
Among the Qin documents is also preserved one item of the house-
hold statutes of the state of Wei 魏 , probably promulgated in the year
252 b.c., in which the king proclaims that it is not the state’s fault that
sometimes, presumably in those of great economic hardship, the people
abandon their homes in villages to go and dwell in the countryside and
enter the houses of orphans and widows, demanding their wives and
daughters. He therefore proclaims that gate-guards (jiamen 叚 門 , i.e.,
jianmen 監門 ), migrants or sojourners (nilu 逆呂 = 旅 ) and pawns (zhuixu
贅婿 ) and houfu 後父 , probably another type of pawn or step-father,
may not be allowed to establish households and receive fields and houses
from the state.44 And this prohibition would last for three generations.
Only after this time lapse could they be allowed to gain employment,
presumably in the government, although they still had to register as
grandsons of such semi-servile people (SHD 292–294; Hulsewé 1985a:
F 1, 208–209).
Here, very clearly, we have another way in which semi-servile in-
dividuals were disadvantaged in relation to the free, common people.
Although registration in households entailed payment of taxes, including
corvée labor service, yet at the same time it did permit the poor some
means of subsistence, because land and houses were also given to such
householders by the state. But these migrants, pawns, and gate-guards
were prevented from engaging in agricultural work, and this failure to
work in the fields was considered a crime in Warring States China. Lord

44
Hulsewé translates nilu as “innkeepers.” The precise meaning of the terms jiamen
and nilu however, has been the subject of some debate. The SHD editors (293, note
4) interpret the former as jiamen 假門 to be read as jiamen 賈門 , with the meaning of
“traders” or “merchants” (shangjia/gu 商賈 ). Wu Rongzeng (1995a, 1995b), however,
disagrees and makes a convincing argument in favor of reading jia as jian 監 , with the
full term jianmen 監門 meaning a low-status “door- or gate-keeper.” Yang Heding (1983)
rejects his conclusions and attempts to prove that the first interpretation is correct. Un-
fortunately, his efforts to show the importance of gates (men 門 ) for markets have little
to do with the meaning of this status or functional/occupational term, and I remain
unconvinced at present. Indeed, it is not impossible that jia should be taken as it stands,
and the term jiamen should be understood as low-status bondservants or slaves who had
been loaned (jia 假 ) out by the government to private individuals: Li Jiahao points out
that in Lu dialect the two words jia and jian were interchangeable (Wu Rongzeng 1995b:
171). We find in the Statutes on Granaries, for example 1 Cang 17 (SHD, 48–49) slave
girls not yet of serviceable age (weishi 未使 ) loaned out to the common people (baixing
百姓 ), who are then responsible for clothing and feeding them. Males in Wei could
perhaps have also been loaned out. Nevertheless, in this interpretation, there remains
the problem of the meaning of men.
312 ROBIN D . S . YATES

Shang’s laws stipulated enslavement for the idle (Takigawa 1979: j. 68:
8–9; Duyvendak 1963: 15), and the Guanzi 管子 suggested that they be
sent to the frontier to perform guard duty, a form of punishment (Guanzi
1934: ce 3 pian 78 “Kuidu,” 90). In another Wei state statute preserved
with the household statute in the Qin tomb, the authorities proclaim
that such indigents should be pressed into the army where the generals
should not show them any mercy (SHD, 294–295; Hulsewé 1985a: F
2, 209–210). The king even implies that they should be killed outright,
and, if not outright, they should be used to fill in the moat as human
waste when the need arose during the siege of a city, when an assault
on the walls was considered necessary.45

Bondservants

Let us now turn very briefly to the question of the bondservants (lichenqie),
which, as I have already mentioned, some scholars interpret as convicts
and others as government slaves. I believe that Liu Hainian (1985, 1986)
is correct that some bondservants were convicts whose sentences were
of limited duration and others were permanent government slaves. This
situation gives further evidence that the number of grades in the orders
below the “free” commoners (shiwu 士伍 ) was considerable.
First of all, quite clearly some of them were convicts and probably
served three-year hard labor terms. Others, however, inherited their
status from their father in the following way. Unlike slaves, a male
bondservant could have a wife not of bondservant status, and the
union of the couple was considered legitimate, for the wife was called
qi 妻 . A child born of this union while the father was still a bondser-
vant, however, inherited his father’s status. If on the father’s death, the
wife tried to conceal the circumstances of the child’s birth, she herself
became a bondservant (SHD 4.155, 225–226; Hulsewé 1985a: D 154,
169–170).
It is interesting to note that, generally speaking, marriage to a male
slave resulted in the free woman accepting his status, and this was true
in ancient and modern times both in the East and the West (Patterson
1982: 131). Indeed, in later Chinese custom, the principle of deterior
condicio that the rule in the Qin exemplifies, continued in full force, such
that the child inherited “the status of the parent with the lower status.”
In the Yuan, the rule was changed and the wife took on the status of
the husband (Patterson 1982: 141–144).

45
I follow the rendition of the SHD editors: Hulsewé’s translation does not seem
appropriate here.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 313

Qin enemy who surrendered were also made bondservants (SHD


3 Za 24, 146–47; Hulsewé 1985a: C23b, 117–118). Were these indi-
vidual prisoners of war permanently enslaved or did they merely serve
a three-year term? One provision of the statutes of army rank (junjuelü
軍爵律 ) indicated that bondservants who cut off enemy heads in battle
and received the rank of gongshi, the lowest of the aristocratic ranks (jue
爵 ), could return that rank to the state and, in exchange, be freed (mian
免 ) and made commoners. Two ranks could be exchanged for either
a father or mother who was a bondservant. And artisan bondservants
who gained similar rank could be freed to become artisans. If they
were not whole, i.e., they were mutilated in some way, they became
so-called “hidden office artisans” (yinguangong 隱官工 ) (SHD 1 Junjue
2, 93–94; Hulsewé 1985a: A 91, 83). What a strange situation that a
bondservant could gain aristocratic rank! Perhaps we should interpret
the situation as follows: the bondservant is substituting or exchanging
his own social death by or for the death of the enemy. The medium of
exchange is rank, which could, as we know, mitigate the severity of all
punishments.
That the Qin cannot have been alone in recruiting low status in-
dividuals into the army can be seen from the military text Liu tao 六
韜 , where it is noted that debt-slaves (zhuixu) and captives who wish to
conceal their tracks and proclaim their names should be gathered into
a separate regiment (zu 卒 ), as should slaves who are seeking to expur-
gate their crime and wish to expurgate their shame (Liu Yin 1975: j.
3 pian 53 “Lianshi,” 16; cf. Wu Rongzeng 1995a). Unfortunately, the
military systems of the other states in competition with Qin are less
well known. We do at least know that some of them rewarded cutting
off heads in battle with gifts of gold, fields, and houses, but which of
them used low-status soldiers, and whether they rewarded meritorious
soldiers with rank, is unclear at present.
Wilbur (1943: 98–117) devotes a chapter of his book to the question
of whether prisoners of war were enslaved in the Han or not. He argues
that, in the Han, most of the war captives were non-Chinese, especially
Xiongnu 凶奴 and those from the minority regions in southwest and
south China. Given the difficulty of absorbing large numbers of non-
Chinese-speaking nomadic warriors, he concludes that, although some
Xiongnu prisoners of war were enslaved, most were not, and that those
from the southern regions were more tractable and easier to absorb by
the Chinese as slaves.
In the Six Dynasties 六朝 and Sui 隋 periods, captives were also
sometimes enslaved and forced to join the conquering army, and, on
occasion, the whole population of a defeated city was enslaved en masse.
These slaves were either appropriated by the government, given by it
314 ROBIN D . S . YATES

to private individuals, often the victorious generals, or forcibly resettled


in a new area far from their original homeland (Wang Yi-t’ung).
There were, in fact, other ways in which bondservants could be
freed. Five years of frontier duty would be sufficient for a female bond-
servant (SHD 1 Sikong 14, 91–92; Hulsewé 1985a: A 72, 73,46 as could
replacement for old and young adult male bondservants by male adult
individuals, who would become bondservants themselves. Two adults
could redeem one male adult bondservant. Female bondservants who
were tailors or seamstresses could, however, never be redeemed (SHD 1
Cang 25, 54–55; Hulsewé 1985a: A 35, 45–46). This certainly indicates
how important the textile industry was to the Qin state, for not only
would these seamstresses provide clothes for the state’s royal court,
convicts, and slaves (soldiers in the army were expected to provide their
own uniforms, but probably not their armor), but also because they
wove cloth that was used as an important medium of exchange, a kind
of money. Given the relative backward state of the Qin economy in
comparison with the more advanced states of the central plains, which
had been using metal currency for several hundred years, this cloth was
crucial for the economic survival and success of the Qin. In that these
seamstresses could never be redeemed, I believe that it is only reason-
able to conclude that, although they were technically convicts, in fact
they were permanent slaves, forever alienated from their natal ties, and
whose labor was ruthlessly exploited by the state in its quest for strength
and universal dominance.
It is in this context that I wish to emphasize that we should not take
the ideological attack by Lord Shang and the legalists, and even the
Confucians, on trade and merchants too seriously. The Qin recognized
the importance of markets for the overall health of its economy and to
provide the necessaries to supply its huge armies (Zhu Shiche 1974: j. 1
pian 2, 8; Duyvendak 1963: 181–182). The Qin legal documents provide
ample evidence that the state was directly engaged in all sectors of the
economy, not only in agriculture, the fundamental occupation, but in
the advanced sector too, in iron foundries, in lacquer, pottery, cloth,
and leather production, and in the construction of transport vehicles,
and possessed strict rules about the functioning of markets (Hulsewé
1985b). As in other states, the Qin seems to have monopolized many,
if not most, of these markets, and the government workshops were

46
The editors place slip 153 at the end of this rule. In Hulsewé’s translation, “If
someone for the redemption of banishment wishes to pay money, this is eight cash per
day.” It has been suggested to me that if lichen were slaves and the status was considered
the equivalent of 5 years at the frontier, to manumit such a slave would be the equiva-
lent of 14,600 cash. This is possible, but it may not be correct to place this slip in this
location, and so I reserve judgment on this matter.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 315

probably located close by to reduce transportation costs and permit


ease of sale (Qiu Xigui 1980). As in the Han, the Qin registered traders
on rolls separate from the rest of the population to ensure the greatest
control possible of these essential, if ideologically suspect, members of
the community (SHD 1 Jinbu 4, 57; Hulsewé 1985a: A 45, 53). Indeed,
in a group of newly published texts, discovered in 1973, and probably
related to the Warring States text Weiliaozi 尉繚子 , it is advocated that
in the center of all settlements (yi 邑 ) there should be a market (Linyi
Yinqueshan Zhujian Zhengli Xiaozu 1985).47 This is very different
from earlier times, when the centers of the villages or towns were the
religious buildings, ancestral temples if the urban agglomeration were
large enough to be the center of a lineage.
I therefore believe that, although the large number of laws concerning
agriculture and grain storage, with their remarkable detail, show that
taxes in the form of grain and hay, together with the poll tax, provided
the main source of government income, the Qin’s exploitation of slave
and convict labor in the advanced sector of the economy, not to men-
tion its use of great amounts of corvée labor, may have been one of the
decisive factors in their success in defeating the other states and unifying
China. Does this mean that in Qin times the basic mode of production
was the slave mode? In the current state of research, I would have to
say a tentative “no” in response. The reasons for my opinion are that it
is likely that, as I have argued elsewhere (Yates 1987), the vast bulk of
the population were members of the “free” commoner class, and that
it was they who provided most of the agricultural labor and most of
the personnel for the Qin armies and aspired to positions in the Qin
bureaucracy.48 Nevertheless, there was a slave, or at least forced labor,
mode of production.
Unlike Rome, where slaves were a far greater component of the total
population and where slave labor was employed on a vast scale, par-
ticularly in the agricultural estates, the latifundia and also in mining, in
certain occupations in the urban economy and in education, and which
therefore has a strong claim to be labeled a slave mode of production
(Anderson 1974: 53–107, especially 62ff), in China this mass of “free”
commoners was a predominant force and certainly owned some of

47
Qiu Xigui accomplished the difficult task of deciphering slips 875–890.
48
The level to which commoners could aspire in the Qin bureaucracy is unknown.
Cho-yun Hsu (1965) gives many examples of low status individuals rising to the high-
est ranks in other states, but I am not sure if this was always true in Qin. Commoners
there may have only risen to the equivalent of the eighth rank in the rank hierarchy.
Under Lord Shang’s laws, an individual who was awarded rank for cutting off heads
in battle could, if he so chose, return the rank and receive an official position instead,
a policy which Hanfeizi deplored (Wang Xianshen 1956: ce 4 pian 43 “Shuoyi,” 22;
Liao 1959: vol.2, 215).
316 ROBIN D . S . YATES

the means of production, such as oxen and tools, even if at present the
extent to which they were able to own the land itself is open to question
(Hulsewé 1985b: 215–18). As we have seen, these commoners could
own slaves themselves, but there was clearly a wide range in financial
circumstances between the richest and the poorest of them, and their
wealth certainly was not at all equal to that of the aristocrats.

Conclusion

What other conclusions can be drawn from the data presented above?
First of all, it must be recognized that there was a range of low statuses
below that of the common people. In non-technical legal language, the
common people were the pingmin 平民 “level people” and were known
also by the term shuren 庶人 or shumin 庶民 . Manumission or freedom
from convict status always used this latter term. However, the legal sta-
tus for a male commoner was shiwu a “member of the rank and file.”
This status is to be compared and contrasted to lower orders, and to
the so-called aristocratic ranks (jue), which commoners could acquire by
cutting off heads in battle, inherit from their fathers, or by performing
other meritorious deeds for the government. These we have mentioned
above, but there is also the possibility that they could purchase them and
win them by producing exceptional quantities of agricultural surplus.
Probably commoners, as in the Han dynasty, could not expect to be
promoted above the eighth rank in the aristocratic hierarchy, a hierar-
chy that stretched up to the king and through him to the cosmos as a
whole. But the evidence for the Qin on the break between commoners
and aristocrats is extremely limited.
Below the commoners, and cut off from the ranking system were the
gate-guards, pawns, migrants, and other low statuses,49 who were denied
rights to land, houses, and registration in households. Below them were
the convicts, and then slaves. Within the convict status, a distinction was
drawn between those who had to wear special red clothing and shackles,
on the lowest level, and the lesser hard labor service convicts, those who
served up to three years. Although all convicts served for only fixed time
periods, yet at the same time, after completion of their sentences, they
still did not regain full commoner status or rights. In the first place, if
they had been mutilated, they were still considered polluting and could

49
One such status was the “man-marmot” (renhe 人貉 ), whose children were forced
to go and take care of their master. If they did not, they were confiscated by the gov-
ernment. If, however, they provided him with food, rather than taking care of him,
they were not be confiscated, but given back to their master (SHD 4.175, 235; Hulsewé
1985a: D 174, 177). As Hulsewé observes, this item is extremely obscure.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 317

not participate in the ancestral religious rites. Secondly, if they commit-


ted another crime after an amnesty (she) had been declared, they could
be re-arrested for their original crime. In times of crisis, they could be
called up again for service by the government, and if they had been
bondservants and mutilated, when they were “freed” they were still
registered separately from the rest of the commoner population.
Convicts did, however, still retain some rights as commoners—they
could still have wives and children who were not taken into government
service, provided, of course, that the law of arrest (shou) had not been
applied to them. Children of bondservant convicts, however, could
inherit their status and become permanent bondservants. Thus there
were clearly difficulties in determining short-term bondservants from
long-term bondservants. Li itself seems to have been a general term for
“slave,” and thus it is true that at least some Han slaves must have been
descendants of such criminals. But the actual situation with regard to
convicts and slaves in the Qin was much more complex than we had
previously believed. Significantly, if criminals’ families were enslaved
by the government, this was known as “drowning” (mo 沒 ), a word that
strongly implies social death, as I have explained.
Below the convicts were these slaves, the property of their own-
ers, who had no rights vis-à-vis their families, who were truly socially
dead, truly the most liminal or marginal of all the groups we have
discussed.
The precise status of all these low groups is often difficult to determine
accurately because with respect to the common people, they were all
socially dead and not human, as the Discourses on Salt and Iron and the
Zuozhuan so eloquently put it. But within that death there were degrees,
just as within the really dead there were also different statuses, from the
powerful dead kings and aristocrats, to the ordinary dead commoners
and the ghosts (gui 鬼 ) (cf. Poo 1998).
By Warring States times, it was the state that claimed the right to
determine status within the family, not only by giving ranks to adult
male members, thus altering the status relationships within the whole
family and lineage, but also even by trying to punish parts of the lineage’s
corporate property, the slaves and the family members. Such punish-
ment radically affected the organization of such families and lineages,
because punishment cut the family members off from their natal ritual
ties. With the breaking of those ties, the li 禮 “rites” were destroyed and
the individual became polluting not just to his family, but to the entire
Chinese conceptual scheme and social order (McLeod 1978; Yates 1997).
To take even a manumitted maidservant and make her a legitimate
wife who had specific ritual duties to perform in the ancestral rites was
thought in the Tang dynasty to disrupt the principles of heaven and
318 ROBIN D . S . YATES

earth.50 It would appear that this was already true in Warring States
times.
From this conceptual ordering of the world, with its emphasis on
the preservation of family ties, of the rites, we can understand how
crime was considered to be disrupting to the entire hierarchy that held
the cosmos together. We can also see why convicts and even more so
slaves were considered to be total outsiders, polluting and dangerous
(cf. Douglas 1966). And finally, we can note how difficult it was for the
Chinese to accept on equal terms peoples on their periphery, such as
the nomads on the northern border and the native tribes of the south
and southwest, as genuine human beings. They did not accept the rites
and the agricultural way of life which defined the social and economic
life of the truly Chinese, and thus by their very nature were of the same
category as slaves. It was thus no accident that the ancient Chinese felt
few qualms in enslaving them when the opportunity or the necessity
arose. Finally, we need to note a remarkable implication of the concep-
tion of slaves and convicts as marginal, liminal people. Because they
were cut off from normal human relationships and were thought of as
socially dead, they themselves could touch the really dead, for both they
and the corpses were dead, and were polluting to the rest of human
society (cf. Yates 1997).51
In this essay, I have not been able to confirm the existence of a slave
society or that the slave mode of production was ever the dominant mode
in ancient China. Nevertheless, I believe I am correct in asserting that
the social institution of slavery, together with its associated penal system,

50
Wallace Johnson (1997: 155) translates the Tang code and subcommentary on this
matter. The subcommentary reads as follows. “The wife is an equal as was said of the
states of Ch’in (Qin) and Chin (Jin). Concubines can be bought and sold and so are
very different from the wife. Slaves are inferior and basically not of the same class as
commoners.
If a person makes the wife a concubine or makes a slave the wife, this violates and
sets aside an agreement that was decided upon, injures the true way of husband and
wife, and insults the principles of human relationships. If the distinction between upper
and lower classes is upset and ritual and principles are scattered, those who commit
such crimes are punished by two years of penal servitude.” For a comprehensive study
of concubines, female slaves and courtesans in the Tang, see Liao Meiyun (1995).
51
It might be valuable to apply the cultural analysis suggested in this article to the
study of eunuchs in Chinese history. The anomalous position of slaves in, or rather
outside, society in the conceptual scheme of things might explain why eunuchs, the
ultimate slaves, were so hated and yet so necessary. At various points in time, they medi-
ated between the sacred Yang (quintessentially male) emperor and the general mass of
the bureaucrats, courtiers, and common folk, who were Yin (quintessentially female in
relation to the emperor) because they were degendered, neither male nor female, and
were “pure” enough to be able to come into contact with the sacred emperor. During
most of Chinese history, however, they stayed within the imperial palace ministering
to the emperor’s private needs and to those of his empress and his harem. In this case
too, they were permitted to do so because they were degendered males.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 319

was a crucial factor in the creation of a unified Chinese empire and


thus fundamentally affected the course of Chinese and consequently
world history.

Appendix

One of the early Han legal cases found at Zhangjiashan 張家山 docu-
ments how a female slave Mei 美 attempted to reject her re-enslave-
ment by her former master Dian 點 and subsequent sale to the Dafu
Lu 大夫祿 (Jiangling Zhangjiashan Hanjian Zhengli Xiaozu 1993: 22;
Li Xueqin 1993; Peng Hao 1993; Yates 1996). The text of the official
report reads as follows.
The eleventh year, eighth month, bingxu day, jiashen being the first day of
the month, Ao 驁 , Assistant of Jiangling, ventures to submit to higher
authority the (following) case:
In the third month, jisi day, the Dafu Lu made a statement, saying:
“In the sixth year, second month, I bought the slave Mei at the member
of the rank and file (shiwu) Dian’s place. The price was 16,000 cash. But
then in the third month, dingsi day, she absconded. I sought and captured
Mei. Mei said, ‘I should not be considered a slave.’”
• Mei said, “Formerly I was Dian’s slave. In the time of Chu, I went
off and absconded. I surrendered and became a Han. My name was
not written down or enumerated. Dian captured me and registered and
enumerated me again as his slave. He sold me to Lu’s place. I (originally)
had pledged myself; I should not suffer enslavement (again). Accordingly,
I went off and absconded. The rest is as Lu (states).”
• Dian said, “Mei formerly was Dian’s slave. In the time of Chu, she
absconded. In the sixth year, in the second month, I captured Mei. Mei
did not yet have a name and was not yet enumerated. Then I registered
and enumerated her, and sold her to Lu’s place. The rest is as Lu and Mei
(state).”
• I (i.e., Assistant Ao) investigated Mei, (saying), “You, Mei, were former-
ly Dian’s slave. Although in the time of Chu, you went off and absconded,
and surrendered and became a Han, you did not write down or enumerate
(yourself). Dian captured (you) and registered and enumerated you. You
(Mei) thereby again became a slave. That he sold you was appropriate. But
you went off and absconded. What is your explanation?”
• Mei said, “In the time of Chu, I absconded. Dian then became a Han.
He again enslaved me, and sold me. I had pledged myself. I ought not to
have been considered a slave again. So then I went off and absconded.
There is no other explanation.”
• I (Assistant Ao) questioned Mei. She is forty years old. The rest is as
in the deposition.
• I (Assistant Ao) judged the case. Mei formerly was Dian’s slave. In
320 ROBIN D . S . YATES

the time of Chu, she absconded and surrendered to be a Han, but she
did not write down her name or enumerate (herself). Dian captured (her)
and registered and enumerated (her). He made her a slave again, and sold
her to Lu’s place. But Mei went off and absconded. She is forty years
old. She was captured. All (the above-mentioned facts) have been care-
fully investigated.
• I suspect Mei is guilty of a crime, but this may have been discussed in
another county. I venture to submit (the case) to higher authority; when I
referred (it) to higher authority the response was that the post [investiga-
tion] was to be similar to the Granary Laws(?).
• The official (li) matching (dang 當 ) is: Tattoo Mei’s face and . . . ,
and give her to Lu. An alternative states, “She matches (deserves) to be a
commoner (shuren).”
This document is very interesting on a number of points. It provides
information, for example, on the price of slaves in the early Han, and
evidence that Han officials closely followed Qin legal forms and proce-
dures.52 It is the latest in the collection from Jiangling: the date of As-
sistant Ao’s submission corresponds to 196 bc, according to Li Xueqin
(1993: 30) and Peng Hao’s (1993: 32) calculations. The slave Mei, being
forty years old at the time of the case, must have been born well before
the Qin unification, in 236 bc, presumably in the state of Chu, though
the “time of Chu” probably refers to the time of the recreation of the
Chu kingdom under Xiang Yu 項羽 after the collapse of Qin imperial
authority.
The crux of the issue, as Li Xueqin points out, is that Mei failed to
register herself as a free commoner after she had absconded and sub-
mitted to Han authority. She hoped that since her master, an ordinary
commoner, Dian, had also surrendered to the Han, and thus both of
them had changed their recognition of what was the legal authority,
the pledge of her person as debt-slave to Dian under Qin rule had
been invalidated and she should no longer be considered a slave. Even
though it is recorded in 202 bc that Han Gaozu seems to have manu-
mitted slaves who had fallen into bondage as a result of poverty in the
previous period,53 here it appears that one legal opinion was that she
should be punished with tattooing of the face and returned to bondage
in Lu’s house, thus upholding the validity of Dian’s re-enslavement and
subsequent sale of her.
I think that the Han official is suspicious about the circumstances
52
The contention in my article Yates (1987) that shiwu indicated commoner status
and was not the name of a punishment is fully born out in the present case, for the
shiwu Dian owns the slave Mei.
53
Han shu j. 1B, p. 4b; Dubs 1938 vol. 1: 104, reads, “As to those people who because
of famine or hunger have themselves sold their persons to be slaves or slave-girls, let
them all be freed and become common people.”
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 321

of Mei’s failure to register. He suspects that she may indeed have


registered, but that she committed some crime in another prefecture.
It would appear that the Assistant could not send out an inquiry to
other prefectures about her liability for crimes committed directly or
horizontally. Instead, he had to submit the case up the administrative
hierarchy where he hoped that the pertinent records would reveal the
true situation regarding her potential culpability. If it was indeed true
that Mei had registered, that she chose to conceal the fact, which would
have released her from her slave status, might suggest that she had com-
mitted some heinous crime that would have resulted in a punishment
even severer than enslavement. She may, however, have failed to register
herself out of ignorance. Nevertheless, she had once been a commoner
before pledging herself to Dian, so she should have known what the
Qin system had been earlier on. In this case, it is apparent that both
Dian and Lu are availing themselves of the state registration system to
enforce their claims on Mei’s person.

References Cited

An Zuozhang 安作璋 (1981). “Cong Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian kan


Qindai de nongye jingji 從 睡 虎 地 秦 墓 竹 簡 看 秦 代 的 農 業 經 濟
(Looking at agricultural economics in the Qin period from the Qin
slips at Shuihudi).” Qin Han shi luncong 秦漢史論叢 1: 27–40. Xi’an:
Shaanxi Renmin Chubanshe.
Anderson, Perry (1974). Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. London:
NLB.
Beattie, Hilary (1979). Land and Lineage in China: A Study of T’ung-Ch’eng
County. Anhwei in the Ming and Ch’ing Dynasties. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bernhardt, Kathryn (1999). Women and Property in China, 960–1949.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Biot, Edouard (1969). Le Tcheou Li ou Rites des Tcheou. Reprint ed. Taibei:
Chengwen Chubanshe.
Birge, Bettine (2002). Women, Property, and Confucian Reactions in Sung and
Yuan China (960–1368). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boulais, Guy (1924). Manuel du Code Chinois. Shanghai: Imprimerie de
la Mission Catholique.
Buckland, W.W. (1908). The Roman Law of Slavery: The Condition of the
Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chang, Kwang-chih (1976). “Towns and cities in ancient China.” In
Kwang-chih Chang, Early Chinese Civilization: Anthropological Perspectives,
322 ROBIN D . S . YATES

pp. 61–71. Harvard-Yenching Monograph series vol. 23. Cambridge:


Harvard University Press.
Chen Hanping 陳漢平 (1988). Xi Zhou ceming zhidu yanjiu 西周冊命制
度研究 (Researches on the investiture system of the Western Zhou).
Shanghai: Xuelin Chubanshe.
Ch’ü, T’ung-tsu (1972). Han Social Structure. Han Dynasty China, Vol.1.
Jack Dull (editor). Seattle: University Washington Press.
Crook, J.A. (1967). Law and Life of Rome. London: Thames and Hud-
son.
Douglas, Mary (1966). Purity and Danger: an Analysis of Concepts of Pollution
and Taboo. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Du Zhengsheng 杜正勝 (1979). Zhoudai chengbang 周代城邦 (City-states
in the Zhou period). Taibei: Lianjing Chuban Shiye Gongsi.
Du Zhengsheng (1990). “‘Dan’ shi gongshe haishi jieshe? Yu Yu Weichao
xiansheng shangque 單 是 公 社 還 是 結 社 ?—–與 俞 偉 超 先 生 商 榷
(Is ‘Dan’ a commune or an association? A review of Yu Weichao’s
theory).” Xin shixue 新史學 1990.1: 107–124.
Dubs, Homer H. (1938–55). History of the Former Han Dynasty. Vols. 1–3.
Baltimore: Waverly Press.
Duyvendak, J.J.L. (trans.) (1963). The Book of Lord Shang. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1993). The Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives
of Chinese Women in the Sung Period. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Finley, Moses I. (editor) (1968). Slavery in Classical Antiquity: Views and
Controversies. Cambridge: Heffer and New York: Barnes and Noble.
Finley, Moses I. (1980). Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. New York:
Viking Press.
Finley, Moses I. (1983). “Between slavery and freedom.” In Brent D.
Shaw and Richard P. Saller (eds.), Economy and Society in Ancient Greece,
pp. 116–132. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Fogel, Robert W. and Stanley L. Engerman (1974). Time on the Cross:
The Economics of American Negro Slavery. Boston and Toronto: Little,
Brown.
Gao Min 高敏 (1979). “Cong Yunmeng Qinjian kan Qin de tudi zhidu
從雲夢秦簡看秦的土地制度 (Looking at the land system of the Qin
from the Qin slips at Yunmeng).” In Yunmeng Qinjian chutan 雲夢秦簡
初探 , pp. 148–170. Xincheng: Henan Renmin Chubanshe.
Gassman, Robert H. (2000). “Understanding ancient China and soci-
ety: approaches to rén 人 and mín 民 .” Journal of the American Oriental
Society 120.3: 348–59.
Gong Changwei 宮長為 and Song Min 宋敏 (1982). “Lichenqie shi
Qin guan nubi 隸臣妾是秦官奴婢 (Lichenqie bondservants are Qin
government slaves).” Zhongguo shi yanjiu 中國史研究 1: 120–26.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 323

Goody, Jack (1980). “Slavery in Time and Space.” In James L. Watson


(editor), Asian and African Systems of Slavery, pp. 16–42. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Guanzi 管子 (1934). Guoxue jiben congshu ed. Shanghai: Shangwu
Yinshuguan.
Guo Huaruo 郭化若 (1978). Shiyijia zhu Sunzi 十一家注孫子 ( Eleven
commentators on Sunzi). Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe.
Guo, Moruo 郭沫若 (1973). Nuli zhi shidai 奴隸制時代 (The Slave
Period). 2nd ed. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe.
Guo Qingfan 郭慶藩 (editor) (1978). Zhuangzi jishi 莊子集釋 (Collected
explanations of the Zhuangzi). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Harrison, A.R.W. (1968). The Law of Athens: The Family and Property.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hindess, Barry and Paul Q. Hirst (1975). Pre-capitalist Modes of Production.
London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hori Tsuyoshi 堀毅 (1988). Qin Han fazhi shi lunkao 秦漢法制史論考
(Studies on the history of the Qin and Han legal system). Beijing:
Falü Chubanshe.
Hsu, Cho-yun (1965). Ancient China in Transition: An Analysis of Social
Mobility 770–222 B.C. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hu Liuyuan 胡留元 and Feng Zhuohui 馮卓慧 (1988). Xi Zhou fazhi
shi 西周法制史 (History of the Western Zhou legal system). Xi’an:
Shaanxi Renmin Chubanshe.
Huang Jinyan 黃今言 (1981). “Qindai zufu yaoyi zhidu chutan 秦代
租稅徭役制度初探 (Preliminary investigation of the tax and corvée
labor system in the Qin period).” Qin Han shi luncong: 61–73.
Huang, Philip C.C. (1996). Civil Justice in China: Representation and Practice
in the Qing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Huang, Philip C.C. (2001). Code, Custom, and Legal Practice in China: The
Qing and the Republic Compared. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Huang Ranwei 黃然偉 (1978). Yin Zhou qingtongqi shangsi mingwen yanjiu
殷周青銅器賞賜銘文研究 (Researches on reward and bestowal in-
scriptions in Yin and Zhou bronze vessels). Hong Kong: Longmen
Shudian.
Huang Shibin 黃士斌 (1982). “Henan Yanshixian faxian Handai mai-
tian yueshu shiquan 河南偃師縣發現漢代買田約束石券 (The Han
period stone binding contract for purchase of fields discovered in
Yanshi County, Henan).” Wenwu 文物 1982.12: 17–20.
Huang Zhongye 黃 中 業 (1991). Qinguo fazhi jianshe 秦 國 法 制 建 設
(The structure of the Qin state legal system). Shenyang: Liao Shen
Shushe.
Hulsewé, A.F.P. (1955). Remnants of Han Law vol.1. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Hulsewé, A.F.P. (1978). “The Ch’in documents discovered in Hu-pei in
1975.” T’oung Pao 64 (1978): 175–217, 338.
324 ROBIN D . S . YATES

Hulsewé, A.F.P. (1985a). Remnants of Ch’in Law: An Annotated Translation


of the Ch’in Legal and Administrative Rules of the 3rd Century B.C. Discovered
in Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Hulsewé, A.F.P. (1985b). “The influence of the ‘Legalist’ government
of Qin on the economy as reflected in the texts discovered in Yun-
meng County.” In Stuart R. Schram (editor), The Scope of State Power
in China, pp. 211–35. London and Hong Kong: St. Martin’s Press,
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and
the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Hulsewé, A.F.P. (1988). “The wide scope of tao 盜 ‘theft’ in Ch’in-Han
law.” Early China 13: 166–200.
Hung, William (editor) (1966). Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological
Index series Supplement no. 11. Combined Concordances to the Ch’un-
Ch’iu, Kung-yang, Ku-liang and Tso-chuan. 4 vols. Taipei: Chinese Materi-
als and Research Aids Service Center.
Hutson, Rev. J. (1919). “Chinese life on the Tibetan foothills: Book II-
Social-continued.” The New China Review 1 (6): 547–561.
Jiangling Zhangjiashan Hanjian Zhengli Xiaozu 江陵張家山漢簡整理
小組 (1993). “Jiangling Zhangjiashan Hanjian shiwen (yi) 江陵張家
山漢簡釋文 (一 ) (Transcription of the Han slips from Zhangjiashan,
Jiangling, part 1.” Wenwu 1993.8: 22–25.
Johnson, Wallace (1997). The T’ang Code: Volume II, Specific Articles. Princ-
eton: Princeton University Press.
Jolowicz, H.F. and Barry Nicholas (1978). Historical Introduction to the Study
of Roman Law. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kalinowski, Marc (1986). “Les Traités de Shuihudi et l’Hémérologie
chinoise à la Fin des Royaumes-combattants.” T’oung Pao 72:
175–228.
Kan, Sergei (1989). Symbolic Immortality: the Tlingit Potlatch of the Nineteenth
Century. Washington: University of Washington Press.
Karras, Alan L. (1991). “Of human bondage: creating an Atlantic his-
tory of slavery.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 22: 285–293.
Keightley, David N. (1969). Public Work in Ancient China: A Study of Forced
Labor in the Shang and Western Chou. Ph.D. dissertation. New York:
Columbia University.
Lau, Ulrich (1999). Quellenstudien zur Landvergabe und Bodenübertragung in der
westlichen Zhou-Dynastie (1045?–771 v. Chr.) Nettetal: Steyler Verlag.
Li Hengmei 李衡眉 (1999). “Qiguo nuli kaoshu 齊國奴隸考述 (Report
on the investigation of slaves in the state of Qi).” In Li Hengmei,
Xian Qin shi lunji 先秦史論集 . Ji’nan: Qilu Shushe.
Li Jiemin 李解民 (1981). “‘Kai qianmo’ bianzheng 開阡陌辨正 (Iden-
tification and correction of errors concerning ‘opening up the qianmo
field paths’).” Wenshi 文史 1981.11: 47–60.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 325

Li Jing 栗勁 (1985). Qin lü tonglun 秦律通論 (Grand survey of Qin law).


Ji’nan: Shandong Renmin Chubanshe.
Li Jiping 李季平 (1986). Tangdai nuli zhidu 唐代奴隸制度 (The slave
system in the Tang period). Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Chuban-
she.
Li Xinda 李新達 (1978). “Guanyu Qin Han ‘cangtou’ de wenti 關於秦
漢蒼頭的問題 (On the question of Han ‘green heads’).” Wenshizhe
文史哲 1978.2: 61–67.
Li Xueqin 李學勤 (1993). “Zou yan shu jieshuo (shang) 奏讞書解說 (上 )
(Explanation of the Book of Reports on Deliberations of Crimes).” Wenwu
1993.8: 26–31.
Liao Meiyun 廖美雲 (1995). Tangji yanjiu 唐伎研究 (Researches into
Tang female entertainers and prostitutes). Taibei: Taiwan Xuesheng
Shuju.
Liao, W.K. (trans.) (1959). Complete Works of Han Fei Tzu. London:
Probsthain.
Lin Jianhan 林振翰 (editor) (1934). Yantie lun 鹽鐵論 (Discourses on salt
and iron). Guoxue jiben congshu ed. Shanghai: Shangwu Yinshu-
guan.
Lin Jianming 林劍鳴 (1981). “Qinguo nulizhi shehui xingtai de tedian
秦國奴隸制社會形態的特點 (Special points about the social form
of the slave system in the Qin state).” Qin Han shi luncong 秦漢史論
叢 1: 3–15.
Linyi Yinqueshan Zhujian Zhengli Xiaozu 臨沂銀雀山漢墓竹簡整理
小組 (1985). “Yinqueshan zhushu Shoufa Shouling deng shisan pian
銀雀山竹書守法守令等十三篇 (The thirteen bamboo books of the
methods of defence, orders for defence, etc., from Yinqueshan).”
Wenwu 1985.4: 27–37.
Liu Hainian 劉海年 (1985). “Guanyu Zhongguo suixing de qiyuan: jian
tan Qin xingtu de xingqi ji lichenqie de shenfen, shang 關於中國歲
刑的起源 —–兼談秦刑徒的刑期及隸臣妾的身份 , 上 (On the origin
of punishments in years in China —and a concurrent discussion of
time-limitation punishments and lichenqie bondservants in the Qin,
part A).” Faxue yanjiu 法學研究 1985.5: 67–76.
Liu Hainian (1986). “Guanyu Zhongguo suixing de qiyuan: jian tan
Qin xingtu de xingqi ji lichenqie de shenfen, xia 關於中國歲刑的
起源 —–兼談秦刑徒的刑期及隸臣妾的身份 , 下 ( On the origin of
punishments in years in China —and a concurrent discussion of
time-limitation punishments and lichenqie bondservants in the Qin,
part B).” Faxue yanjiu 1985.6: 68–73.
Liu Lexian 劉樂賢 (1994). Shuihudi Qinjian rishu yanjiu 睡虎地日書研究
(Researches on the almanac books in the Qin slips from Shuihudi).
Taibei: Wenjin Chubanshe.
326 ROBIN D . S . YATES

Liu Weimin 劉偉民 (1975). Zhongguo gudai nubi zhidu shi 中國古代奴婢
制度史 (History of the ancient Chinese slave system). Hong Kong:
Longmen Shudian.
Liu Xiang 劉向 n.d. Shuo yuan 說苑 (Garden of sayings). Sibu congkan
ed. Shanghai: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Liu Yin 劉寅 (editor) (1975). Liutao zhijie 六韜直解 (Direct explanations
of the Liu tao). Kambun taikei ed. Tokyo: Fuzambô.
Loewe, Michael (1974). “The Grand Inquest — 81 b.c.” In Crisis and
Conflict in Han China 104 B.C. to A.D. 91, pp. 91–112. London: George
Allen and Unwin.
Loewe, Michael (1994). “The almanacs (jih-shu) from Shui-hu-ti: a pre-
liminary survey.” In Divination, Mythology and Monarchy in Han China,
pp. 214–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKnight, Brian E. (1981). The Quality of Mercy: Amnesties and Traditional
Chinese Justice. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
McKnight, Brian E. and James T.C. Liu (trans.) (1999). The Enlightened
Judgments Ch’ing-ming Chi: The Sung Dynasty Collection. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
McLeod, Katrina C.D. (1978). “Law and the symbolism of pollution:
some observations on the Ch’in laws from Yun-meng.” Unpublished
paper, Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, Chi-
cago.
McLeod, Katrina C.D. and Robin D.S. Yates (1981). “Forms of Ch’in
law: an annotated translation of the Feng-chen shih.” Harvard Journal
of Asiatic Studies 41.1: 111–163.
Meijer, Marinus J. (1980). “Slavery at the end of the Ch’ing Dynasty.” In
Jerome Alan Cohen, R. Randle Edwards, and Fu-mei Chang Ch’en
(eds.), Essays on China’s Legal Tradition, pp. 327–358. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Meillassoux, Claude (editor) (1975). L’Esclavage en Afrique Precoloniale.
Paris: Maspero.
Meillassoux, Claude (1978). “Correspondence (On slavery).” Economy
and Society 7: 321–331.
Miers, Suzanne and Igor Kopytoff (editors) (1977). Slavery in Africa:
Historical and Anthropological Perspectives. Madison: University of Wis-
consin Press.
Miller, Joseph C. (1985). Slavery: A Worldwide Bibliography 1900–1982.
White Plains, N.Y.: Kraus International.
Musha Akira 武者章 (1980). “Sei-Shû sakumei kinbun bunrui no ko-
koromi 西周冊命金文分類の試み (An attempt at a comprehensive
classification of the Western Zhou bronze inscriptions: the case of
the investiture of feudal vassals (ceming jinwen).” In Matsumaru Michio
松丸道雄 (editor), Sei-Shû seidôki to sono kokka 西周青銅器とその国家
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 327

(Western Zhou bronzes and states), pp. 241–324. Tôkyô: University


of Tokyo Press.
Nieboer, H.J. (1900). Slavery as an Industrial System: Ethnological Researches.
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Niida Noboru 仁井田陞 (1944). Shina mibunhô shi 支那身分法史 (History
of legal status in China). Tokyo: Zayûhô kankôkai.
Ning Ke 寧可 (1982). “Guanyu Han Shiting li Fulao dan maitian yueshu
shiquan 關於漢侍廷里父老僤買田約束石券 (On the Han binding
stone contract for the purchase of fields of the Fulao and Dan associa-
tion of Shiting Village).” Wenwu 1982.12: 21–27.
Ôba Osamu 大庭脩 (1991). Qin Han fazhi shi yanjiu 秦漢法制史研究 (Re-
searches into the history of the Qin and Han legal system). Translated
by Lin Jianming et al. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe.
Padgug, Robert A. (1976). “Problems in the theory of slavery and slave
society.” Science and Society 40: 3–27.
Parish, Peter J. (1989). Slavery: History and Historians. New York: Harper
and Row.
Patterson, Orlando (1979). “On slavery and slave formations.” New Left
Review 117: 31–67.
Patterson, Orlando (1982). Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative
Study.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Peng Hao 彭浩 (1993). “Tan Zou yan shu zhong de Xi Han anli 談奏讞
書中的西漢案例 (Discussion of the examples of cases in the Book of
Reports on the Deliberations of Crimes.” Wenwu 1993.8: 32–36.
Poo, Mu-chou (1998). In Search of Personal Welfare: A View of Ancient Chinese
Religion. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (1958). “The origins and nature of chattel slav-
ery in China.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1:
185–220.
Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭 (1980). “Zhanguo wenzi zhong de ‘shi’ 戰國文字中
的市 (‘Markets’ in Warring States writings).” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報
111: 285–296.
Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤 and Zeng Xiantong 曾憲通 (1993). Chudi chutu wenxian
sanzhong yanjiu 楚地出土文獻三種研究 (Three different researches
into texts excavated from Chu territory). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Reed, Carrie H. (2000). “Tattoo in early China.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 120.3: 360–76.
Schulz, Fritz (1936). Principles of Roman Law. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Schurmann, H.F. (1956). “Traditional property concepts in China.” Far
Eastern Quarterly 15: 507–516.
Shaughnessy, Edward L. (1991). Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed
Bronze Vessels. Berkeley: University of California Press.
328 ROBIN D . S . YATES

SHD = Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian Zhengli Xiaozu 睡虎地秦墓竹簡整


理小組 (1978). Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian 睡虎地秦墓竹簡 (The bamboo
slips from the Qin tomb at Shuihudi). Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
Shima Kunio 島那邦 (1958). Inkyo bokuji kenkyû 殷墟卜辭研究 (Re-
searches into the oracle bone inscriptions from the wastes of Yin).
Hirosaki: Chûgokugaku Kenkyûkai.
Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian Zhengli Xiaozu (1990). Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian
睡虎地秦墓竹簡 (The bamboo slips from the Qin tomb at Shuihudi).
Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
Sun Yirang 孫詒讓 (editor) (1983). Zhouli zhengyi 周禮正義 (Correct
Interpretations of the Rites of Zhou). Sibu beiyao ed. Taibei: Zhon-
ghua Shuju.
Takigawa Kametarô 瀧川龜太郎 (1979). Shiki kaichu kôshô 史記會注
考證 (Assembled commentaries and textual criticism on the Shi ji).
Taibei: Mingyu Chubanshe.
Tang Zangong 唐贊功 (1981). “Yunmeng Qinjian guansi nuli wenti
shitan 雲夢秦簡官私奴隸問題試探 (Preliminary discussion of the
question of private and government slaves in the Qin slips from
Yunmeng).” Zhonghua wenshi luncong 中華文史論叢 1981.3: 143–63.
Tomiya Itaru 富谷至 (1985). “Renzasei to sono shûhen 連座制とそ
の周辺 (The system of linked responsibility and related issues).”
In Hayashi Minao 林巳奈夫 (editor), Sengoku jidai shutsudo bunbutsu
no kenkyû 戦国時代出土文物の研究 , pp. 475–527. Kyôto: Kyôto
Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyûjo.
Wang Xianqian 王先謙 (editor) n.d. Han shu buzhu 漢書補注 (Supple-
mentary commentary on the Han shu). Taibei: Yiwen Yinshuguan.
Wang Xianshen 王 先 慎 (editor) (1956). Hanfeizi jijie 韓 非 子 集 解
(Collected explanations of the Hanfeizi). Taiwan: Shangwu Yins-
huguan.
Wang, Yi-t’ung (1953). “Slaves and other comparable social groups
during the Northern Dynasties (386–618).” Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies 16: 293–364.
Watson, James L. (editor) (1980a). Asian and African Systems of Slavery.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Watson, James L (1980b). “Slavery as an institution, open and closed
systems.” In Watson (1980a), pp. 1–15. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Watson, James L (1980c). “Transactions in people: the Chinese mar-
ket in slaves, servants and heirs.” In Watson (1980a), pp. 223–250.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Watson, James L (1982). “Chinese kinship reconsidered: anthropological
perspectives on historical research.” China Quarterly 92: 589–622.
Wilbur, C. Martin (1943). Slavery in China during the Former Han Dynasty.
Anthropological Series , vol. 34. Chicago: Chicago Field Museum
of Natural History.
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 329

Wu Fuzhu 吳福助 (1994). Shuihudi Qinjian lunkao 睡虎地秦簡論考 (Stud-


ies of the Qin slips from Shuihudi). Taibei: Wenjin Chubanshe.
Wu Hui 吳慧 (1981). Sang Hongyang yanjiu 桑弘羊研究 (Researches on
Sang Hongyang). Jinan: Qilu Shushe.
Wu Rongzeng 吳榮曾 (1995a). “Xumi shitan — lun Zhanguo shi de
xingtu zhi 胥靡試探 —–論戰國時的刑徒制 (Exploration of xumi: a
discussion of the convict system of the Warring States period).” In
Xian Qin liang Han shi yanjiu 先秦兩漢史研究 , pp. 148–61. Beijing:
Zhonghua Shuju.
Wu Rongzeng (1995b). “Jianmen kao 監門考 (An investigation of jian-
men).” In Xian Qin liang Han shi yanjiu, pp. 162–71. Beijing: Zhonghua
Shuju.
Xing Yitian 邢義田 (1987). Qin Han shi lungao 秦漢史論稿 (Essays on
Qin and Han history). Taibei: Dongda Tushu Gongsi.
Xiong Tieji 熊鐵基 and Wang Ruiming 王瑞明 (1981). “Qindai de
fengjian tudi suoyou zhi 秦代的封建土地所有制 (The comprehen-
sive system of feudal land in the Qin period).” In Yunmeng Qinjian
yanjiu 雲夢秦簡研究 : 67–78. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Xu Fuchang 徐富昌 (1993). Shuihudi Qinjian yanjiu 睡虎地秦簡研究
(Researches into the Qin slips from Shuihudi). Taibei: Wenshizhe
Chubanshe.
Xu Yangjie 徐揚杰 (1981). “Hanjian zhong suojian wujia kaoshi 漢
簡中所見物價考釋 (Explanations of the price of goods seen in the
Han slips).” Zhonghua wenshi luncong 111.3.
Xu Zhongshu 徐中舒 (1981). Shuowen jiezi duanzhu 說文解字段注 (Duan
Yucai’s commentary on the Shuowen jiezi). 2 vols. Chengdu: Chengdu
Guji Shudian.
Yang Heding 楊禾丁 (1983). “Jiamen yu jianmen 叚 門與監門 (Jiamen
and jianmen).” Zhonghua wenshi luncong 111: 223–237.
Yang Ximei 楊希枚 (1956). “Xian Qin zhuhou shoujiang xianjie qianfu
zhidu kao 先秦諸侯受降獻捷遣俘制度考 (Studies on the system
of accepting surrender, awarding prisoners of war, and repatriating
prisoners among the lords in the pre-Qin period).” Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo
jikan 歷史語言研究所集刊 27: 107–116.
Yates, Robin D.S. (1987). “Social status in the Ch’in: evidence from the
Yün-meng legal documents. Part one: commoners.” Harvard Journal
of Asiatic Studies 47: 197–236.
Yates, Robin D.S. (1988). “New light on ancient Chinese military texts:
notes on the nature and evolution, and the development of military
specialization in Warring States China.” T’oung Pao 74: 211–248.
Yates, Robin D.S. (1996). “The exercise of discourse: Qin popular cul-
ture and the Qin state.” Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting
of the Association for Asian Studies, April 11–14, 1996.
Yates, Robin D.S. (1997). “Purity and pollution in early China.” In
330 ROBIN D . S . YATES

Zang Zhenhua 臧振華 (editor), Zhongguo kaoguxue yu lishixue zhenghe


yanjiu 中國考古學與歷史學整合研究 (Integrated studies of Chinese
archaeology and history), pp. 479–536. Symposium Series of the
Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, No. 4. Taipei:
Academia Sinica.
Yu Haoliang 于豪亮 (1985a). “Qinjian zhong de nuli 秦簡中的奴隸
(Slaves in the Qin slips).” In Yu Haoliang xueshu wencun 于豪亮學術文
存 , pp. 116–23. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Yu Haoliang (1985b). “Yunmeng Qinjian suojian zhiguan shulue 雲夢
秦簡所見職官述略 (Brief account of the administrative positions
seen in the Qin slips from Yunmeng).” In Yu Haoliang xueshu wencun,
pp. 88–115. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Yu Weichao 俞偉超 (1988). Zhongguo gudai gongshe zuzhi de kaocha: lun xian
Qin liang Han de dan-dan-dan 中國古代公社組織的考察 —–論先秦兩
漢的單 –僤 –彈 (Investigation into the organization of communes in
ancient China: a discussion of dan, dan, and dan in the pre-Qin and
two Han periods). Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
Yu Zongfa 余宗發 (1992). Yunmeng Qinjian zhong sixiang yu zhidu gouzhi 雲
夢秦簡中思想與制度鉤摭 (A probe into the thought and system of
the Qin slips from Yunmeng). Taibei: Wenjin Chubanshe.
Yunmeng Shuihudi Qinmu Bianxie Zu 雲夢睡虎地秦墓編寫組 (1981).
Yunmeng Shuihudi Qinmu 雲夢睡虎地秦墓 (The Qin tomb at Shuihudi,
Yunmeng). Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
Yunmeng Qinjian Zhengli Xiaozu 雲夢秦簡整理小組 (1976a). “Yun-
meng Qinjian shiwen (yi) 雲夢秦簡釋文 (一 ) (Transcriptions of the
Qin slips from Yunmeng [1]).” Wenwu 1976.6: 11–14.
Yunmeng Qinjian Zhengli Xiaozu (1976b). “Yunmeng Qinjian shiwen
(er) (Transcriptions of the Qin slips from Yunmeng [2]).” Wenwu
1976.7: 1–11.
Yunmeng Qinjian Zhengli Xiaozu (1976c). “Yunmeng Qinjian shiwen
(san) (Transcriptions of the Qin slips from Yunmeng [3]).” Wenwu
1976.8: 27–37.
Zhang Chuanxi 張傳璽 (1985). Qin Han wenti yanjiu 秦漢問題研究
(Researches into questions concerning the Qin and Han). Beijing:
Beijing Daxue Chubanshe.
Zhongguo Renmin Jiefangjun Junshi Kexueyuan 中國人民解放軍軍
事科學院 and Zhanzheng Lilun Yanjiubu Sunzi Zhushi Xiaozu 戰
爭理論研究部孫子注釋小組 (1977). Sunzi bingfa xinzhu 孫子兵法
新注 (New commentary on Sunzi’s Art of War). Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju.
Zhu Shaohou 朱紹侯 (1981). “Qin Han shidai de nuli yifu nongmin
he qita laodongzhe: Qin Han tudi zhidu he jieji guanxi yanjiu 秦
漢時代的奴隸依附農民和其他勞動者 —–秦漢土地制度和階級關
SLAVERY IN EARLY CHINA 331

係研究 (Slaves, dependent peasants, and other workers in the Qin


period: the Qin and Han class and land system).” Qin Han shi luncong
1: 227–242.
Zhu Shiche 朱師轍 (1974). Shangjunshu jiegu dingben 商君書解詁定本
(Final version of the explanatory notes of the Book of Lord Shang).
Hong Kong: Zhonghua Shuju.

Address:
Departments of History and East Asian Studies
McGill University
3434 McTavish Street
Montreal QC H3A 1X9
Canada
robin.yates@mcgill.ca

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen