No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 December 2024
Evidence shows that tenth- and eleventh-century Kitan (Liao) emperors used pseudo-kinship to cement diplomatic relations with foreign powers as well as for internal affairs. Similarities between this practice and twelfth- and thirteenth-century Mongol anda (sworn friendship) were previously highlighted by Wang Guowei but have yet to be the focus of further study. Kitan emperors used pseudo-kinship as a preferred political tool to establish alliances and reinforce their position in both external and domestic policies. A comparison of Kitan and Mongol traditions also shows a high degree of similarity. However, although they share concepts of sworn friendship and common oath rituals, the establishment of pseudo-kinship occurred in different contexts and often for different purposes. This article attempts to show that Kitan rulers successfully continued the pseudo-kinship diplomacy that existed since the Tang between the hegemons of the steppe and the Central Plain. They achieved this by making regular use of pseudo-kinship diplomacy, in addition to seeking ways to make the practice more acceptable to the Chinese court. These adaptations included a progressive estrangement of diplomatic pseudo-kinship from its original form, casting away oath rituals and adopting a new system of kinship terms.
1 Xin Tangshu, Beijing: 1975, 215: 6024. This translation appears in two of David C. Wright's articles. I have modified its text to correct several misunderstandings. D. C. Wright, ‘The screed of a humbled empire: the Xin Tangshu's prolegomena on the Türks’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae LV (2002), p. 382; Wright, D. C., ‘A Chinese princess bride's life and activism among the Eastern Türks, 580-593 CE’, Journal of Asian History XLV (2011), p. 43Google Scholar.
2 I follow a habit that was found in ancient Chinese texts by mentioning only personal names (ming 名) when the context allows it. Modern authors are, of course, not mentioned in this manner.
3 Wright's article on a Tang princess presents a general history of heqin, alongside a helpful bibliography; ibid. Nicola Di Cosmo devoted several pages to the heqin relationships between Han and Xiongnu; Di Cosmo, N., Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Powers in East Asian History (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 190–196Google Scholar. Likewise, Jonathan Skaff focused on the heqin under the Sui and Tang Dynasties, presenting the point of views of the Chinese and then the steppe rulers; J. Skaff, Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbours (Oxford, 2012), pp. 209–224. Notable works on heqin in Chinese include: Wang Tongling 王桐齡, ‘Han-Tang zhi heqin zhengce’ 漢唐之和親政策, in Zhongguo funü shi lunji 中國婦女史論集, (ed.) Bao Jialin 鮑家麟 (Taipei, 1993), vol. 3, pp. 41–50; Cui Mingde 崔明德, Zhongguo gudai heqin shi 中國古代和親史 (Beijing, 2005); Lin Enxian 林恩賢, Zhongguo gudai heqin yanjiu 中國古代和親研究 (Harbin, 2012). The latter is particularly useful, as it describes all unions individually and in chronological order.
4 Tan, Xu 覃旭, ‘Liao-Song zhijian wu heqin yuanyin chutan’ 遼宋之間無和親原因初探, Beifang wenwu 3 (2020), p. 91Google Scholar.
5 The character chan 澶 can also be read as shan, which forms the alternative and valid reading ‘Shanyuan’. This reading was retained by Christophe Lamouroux in order to write La dynastie des Song (Paris, 2020). This article retains ‘Chanyuan’, as it is the most common reading of the toponym.
6 Twitchett, D. C. and Tietze, K.-P., ‘The Liao’, in The Cambridge History of China, (eds.) Franke, H. and Twitchett, D. C. (Cambridge, 1994), vol. 6, p. 109Google Scholar.
7 I have found no article that discusses the pseudo-kinship diplomacy of the Kitans with both the Five Dynasties and the Song. Instead, researchers have focused almost exclusively on Liao–Song diplomacy without attempting to connect it with the previous era.
8 Gungwu, Wang, ‘The rhetoric of a lesser empire: early Sung relations with its neighbors’, in China Among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th–14th Centuries, (ed.) Rossabi, M. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983), p. 55Google Scholar.
9 Wright provided in-depth studies on the 1004–1005 war and treaty, and on Song–Liao diplomacy; see also Lorge, P., ‘The great ditch of China and the Song-Liao border’, in Battlefronts Real and Imagined. War, Border, and Identity in the Chinese Middle Period, (ed.) Wyatt, D. J. (New York, 2008), pp. 59–74Google Scholar.
10 Some examples are found during most ancient periods, such as the brotherhood that was concluded between Ma Chao 馬超 and Han Sui 韓遂, General of Zhenxi 鎮西, during the Later Han Dynasty; Sanguo zhi 三國志, Taipei: 1980, ‘Shushu’ 蜀書, 36: 945. The fortune-teller Liu Weitai 劉緯臺 and the two merchants Li Yizi 李移子 and Le Hedang 樂何當 also swore friendship. Both stories are briefly mentioned in the Sanguo zhi (‘Weishu’ 魏書, 8: 243). Non-Chinese were already involved in pseudo-kinship diplomacy before the Tang, such as when Shi Le 石勒 of the Jie 羯 negotiated peace with Yulü 鬱律 of the Tabghatch in 318: ‘he asked to become brothers’ (請為兄弟). Weishu 魏書, Beijing: 2017, 1: 10 (all the Chinese dynastic histories are quoted according to the newest Zhonghua shuju edition, if available). These examples were taken from a short survey on ancient sworn brotherhoods by Yue Dehu; Yue Dehu 岳德虎, ‘Woguo gudai yixing xiongdi jiebai zhi kaolun’ 我國古代異姓兄弟結拜之考論, Nei Menggu daxue xuebao, 2012/5, p. 332.
11 On pseudo-kinship under the Zhou Dynasty, see Hinsch, B., ‘The origins of Han-Dynasty consort kin power’, East Asian History XXV/XXVI (2003), pp. 16–17Google Scholar.
12 Skaff, Sui-Tang China, p. 224.
13 Khazanov, A. M., Nomads and the Outside World, 2nd edn (Madison, 1994), pp. 138–139Google Scholar.
14 The only major exception to that is the importance of sworn brotherhoods found in Shi Nai'an 施耐庵 (1296–1372) and Luo Guanzhong's Water Margin (Shuihu zhuan 水滸傳), the most famous being the brotherhood between Song Jiang 宋江 and Wu Song 武松 and that between Lu Zhishen 魯智深 and Shi Jin 史進. Instances of sworn brotherhood in fourteenth-century China were restricted to the imaginary life of heroes and came into practice only during the Qing; Zhu Ruiquan 朱銳泉, ‘Lun “Sanguo”, “Shuihu” yijiang Ming-Qing xiaoshuo de xiongdi jiebai xushi’ 論《三國》、《水滸》以降明清小說的兄弟結拜敘事, Zhongguo wenhua yanjiu (summer 2019), p. 132. In his 2012 article about sworn brotherhoods in the Yuan and Ming periods, Zhang Tongsheng hypothesised that Mongol anda influenced the Chinese imagination; Zhang Tongsheng 張同勝, ‘Jieyi yu jie anda’ 結義與結安答, Jining xueyuan xuebao 濟寧學院學報 XXXIII (2012), pp. 18–19. Françoise Aubin and Miao Runbo demonstrated separately (Miao was not aware of Aubin's article) that the black ox and white horse sacrifice in the ‘Oath of the Peach Orchard’ stems from the Kitan traditional sacrifice given to Heaven and Earth; F. Aubin, ‘Cheval céleste et bovin chtonien’, in Quand le crible était dans la paille: Hommage à Pertev Naili Boratav, (eds.) R. Dor and M. Nicolas (Paris, 1978), pp. 37–63; Miao Runbo, ‘“Qingniu baima” yuanliu xinlun: yizhong Qidan wenhua xingtai de chang qiduan guancha’ 青牛白馬’源流新論—種契丹文化形態的長期段觀察, Beijing daxue xuebao (Zhexue shehui kexue ban) LIII (2022), pp. 102–112. By showing that the sworn brotherhood and sacrifice entered into the lore of the Three Kingdoms heroes during the Jin Dynasty or maybe before, during the Liao, Miao proved that Zhang Tongsheng's insight was incorrect. However, the possibility that the Peach Orchard brotherhood drew inspiration from Kitan pseudo-kinships cannot be ruled out.
15 Wang Gungwu, ‘Rhetoric of a lesser empire’, p. 55. In the majority of studies about Song–Liao diplomacy, the pseudo-kinship between emperors is considered to be a secondary feature and is only mentioned as a part of official discourse; see e.g. Tao Jinsheng 陶晉生, Songdai waijiao shi 宋代外交史 (Chongqing, 2021), pp. 48–49.
16 On the multiple definitions given by historians to translate anda, see Isono F. 磯野富士子, ‘Anda kō’ アンダ考, Tōyō gakuhō 東洋学報 LXVII (1985), pp. 57–60.
17 The Liaoshi, finished in 1344, is one of the three official dynastic histories that were written at the end of the Yuan Dynasty. For its compilation process and sources, see Miao Runbo 苗潤博, Liaoshi tanyuan 《遼史》探源 (Beijing, 2020). This article only cites the newest edition of the Liaoshi (Beijing: 2016).
18 Wang Guowei 王國維, Guantang jilin 觀堂集林, 2001 edn, 16: 404. 與蒙古結安答之俗完全相似，則蒙古語中安答一語，或即自契丹語出也.
19 Pelliot, P., ‘L'édition collective des œuvres de Wang Kouo-wei’, T'oung Pao XXVI (1928), p. 130Google Scholar.
20 Isono, ‘Anda kō’, pp. 57–80; see also the Chinese translation in Isono, Ölǰeitü (Wulijitu 烏力吉圖) (trans.), ‘Anda kao’ 安答考, Mengguxue ziliao yu qingbao 蒙古學資料與情報 2 (1986), pp. 1–9.
21 Aisin-Gioro U. (愛新覺羅烏拉熙春), Kittanbun boshi yori mita Ryōshi 契丹文墓誌より見た遼史 (Kyōto, 2006). For an edition of the best-known Kitan texts in both scripts, see Činggeltei (清格爾泰), Wu Yingzhe 吳英喆 and Jirüke (吉如何), Qidan xiaozi zai yanjiu 契丹小字再研究 (Hohhot, 2017).
22 About the Qidan guo zhi 契丹國志 being an early Yuan work, see Liu Pujiang 劉浦江, ‘Qidan guo zhi yu Da Jin guo zhi guanxi shitan’ 《契丹國志》與《大金國志》關係試探, in Liao-Jin shilun 遼金史論 (Beijing, 2019), pp. 304–317.
23 Stephen Pow demonstrated that the state ruling over the Mongolian Plateau was called Tatar until the reign of Ögedei. Being the name of the native community of Činggis Qan and the official name of his state, the name Mongol gradually replaced Tatar as the common appellation for most of his ‘Turco–Mongol’ subjects; Pow, S., ‘“Nationes que se Tartaros appellant”: an exploration of the historical problem of the usage of the ethnonyms Tatar and Mongol in medieval sources’, Golden Horde Review VII (2019), pp. 545–567Google Scholar. Following the demonstration of Christopher P. Atwood, we reject the appellation of ‘tribe’; C. P. Atwood, ‘How the Mongols got a word for tribe—and what it means’, Menggu shi yanjiu 蒙古史研究 X (2010), pp. 63–89; see also Atwood, C. P., ‘The administrative origins of Mongolia's “tribal” vocabulary’, Eurasia: Statum et Legem IV (2015), pp. 7–45Google Scholar. Therefore, we call ‘Tatar–Mongol’ a group of communities that used to be under the nominal suzerainty of Kereyid kings.
24 Isono, ‘Anda kō’, pp. 60–61; Urgunge, Onon, The Secret History of the Mongols: The Life and Times of Chinggis Khan (London and New York, 2001)Google Scholar, p. 8; Sneath, D. and Kaplonski, C. (ed.), The History of Mongolia (Folkestone, 2010)Google Scholar, p. 161, note 197. Isono Fujiko dedicated a whole section of her article to a discussion on the question of equality between anda (‘Anda kō’, pp. 66–71). She maintains that the anda friendship displayed and affirmed equal status between oath takers, unlike the nökör friendship that revolves around vassalage.
25 Cheng, C.-S. E., Studies in the Career of Chinggis Qan (London, 1996), p. 213Google Scholar, note 3.
26 Menggu mishi jiaokan ben, (ed.) Eldengtei and Oyuundalai (Hohhot, 2006), 165: 351–352; Cleaves, F. W. (trans.), The Secret History of the Mongols (Cambridge, MA, 1982), pp. 89–90Google Scholar; I. de Rachewiltz (trans.), The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century (Madison, 2015), p. 79. See also the most recent translation by Atwood, which was unavailable to me during the redaction of this article: Atwood, C. P. (trans.), The Secret History of the Mongols (London, 2023)Google Scholar.
27 ad-Dīn, Rashīd, Jāmi‘ at-tavārīkh: Tārīkh-e Ghāzānī, (eds.) Rowshan, M. and Mūsavī, M. (Teheran, 2016), p. 93Google Scholar. I would like to thank Simon Berger for providing the text and translating it.
28 Cheng, Studies in the Career of Chinggis Qan, pp. 215–216.
29 d'Ohsson, C., Histoire des Mongols, depuis Tchinguiz-Khan jusqu’à Timour Bey ou Tamerlan (Amsterdam, 1852), vol. 1, p. 52Google Scholar; Isono, ‘Anda kō’, p. 60. As Isono Fujiko pointed out, early dictionaries also provided definitions of anda that were close to d'Ohsson's ami juré; the Japanese Mōkogo daijiten 蒙古語大辞典 entry said: ‘1: close friend; 2: associate; 3: accomplice; 4: comrade in arms’; and the Russian Dictionnaire mongol-russe-français says: ‘ami, camarade, compagnon, partisan; favorit [sic]’. Ministry of the Army (ed.), Mōkogo daijiten (Tōkyō, 1933), vol. 1, p. 12; Kowalewski, J. E., Dictionnaire mongol-russe-français (Kazan, 1844), vol. 1, p. 12Google Scholar. Both entries are cited in Isono, ‘Anda kō’, p. 58.
30 Birtalan, Á., ‘Rituals of sworn brotherhood’, in Chronica, Annual of the Institute of History, University Szeged, (ed.) Zimonyi, I. (2007–2008), p. 45Google Scholar.
31 On exchange marriages in Kitan and Mongol societies, see N. Uno (Uno Nobuhiro 宇野伸宏), ‘Exchange-marriage in the royal families of nomadic states’, in The Early Mongols: Language, Culture and History, (eds.) Rybatzki, V. et al. (Bloomington, 2009), pp. 175–182Google Scholar.
32 The Successors of Genghis Khan, (trans.) J. A. Boyle (New York and London, 1971), p. 140.
33 Fu Ma pointed out that Qočo rulers abandoned the title of qan or qaγan in order to avoid bearing the same title as their suzerains the Qara-Kitai (they were the gür qaγan). He adds that qaγan and ïduq qut were used concurrently until the reign of *Äsän Temür (Barčuq's father). Fu Ma 付馬, ‘Xizhou Huihu tongzhizhe chenghu yanjiu: Niandai, jiegou yu tezheng’ 西州回鶻統治者稱號研究——年代、結構與特徵, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 XCI (2020/06), p. 161.
34 Yuanshi 元史 (Taipei, 1981), 122: 3000.
35 On sources and interrogations about the marriage of Al-Altan, see Broadbridge, A., Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire (Cambridge, 2018), pp. 199–220Google Scholar, note 44.
36 T. Allsen, ‘The Yüan Dynasty and the Uighurs of Turfan’, in China among Equals, (ed.) M. Rossabi, pp. 247–248.
37 The text of the epitaph of Qitai Šari is only known through two shortened versions found in the anthology of Zhao Mengfu's works called Songxuezhai wenji 松雪齋文集 and in the Buddhist history written by Nianchang 念常 called Fozu lidai tongzai 佛祖歷代通載 (T.49.2036). The citation is the same in both of these texts. T.49.2036.727c. Songxuezhai wenji, National Library of China 07099, 7:12–1. 回鶻冣彊冣先附，遂詔其主亦都護第五子，與諸皇子約為兄弟，寵異冠諸國.
38 On the marriages between the imperial family and the royal family of Qočo, see Wang Hongmei 王紅梅, ‘Yuandai Menggu wangshi yu Weiwu'er yiduhu jiazu lianyin kao’ 元代蒙古王室與畏兀兒亦都護家族聯姻考, Lanzhou xuekan 蘭州學刊 CLXXXIX (2009), pp. 7–12.
39 On the adoption of Šigi-Qutuqu and related problems, see P. Rachnevsky, ‘Šigi-Qutuqu, Ein Mongolischer Gefolgsmann im 12.-13. Jahrhundert’, Central Asiatic Journal X.2 (1965), pp. 87–120; I. de Rachewiltz, ‘Šigi-Qutuqu’, in In the Service of the Khan: Eminent Personalities of the Early Mongol-Yüan Period, (eds.) I. de Rachewiltz, H.-L. Chan, Hsiao Ch'i-Ch'ing, and P. Geier (Wiesbaden, 1993), pp. 75–94; Uno Nobuhiro 宇野伸浩, ‘Chingisu Kan zenhansei kenkyū no tame no Genchō hishi to Shūshi no hikaku kōsatsu’ チンギス・カン前半生研究のための「元朝秘史」と「集史」の比較考察, Ningen kankyōgaku kenkyū 人間環境学研究 VII (2009), pp. 59–62.
40 Vladimirtsov, B., Obshchestvennyy stroy mongolov: Mongol'skiy kochevoy feodalizm (Leningrad, 1934), p. 61Google Scholar.
41 Shengwu qinzheng lu (Beijing, 2020), p. 46.
42 Birtalan, ‘Rituals of sworn brotherhood’, pp. 47–49.
43 Menggu mishi jiaokan ben, 116: 188.
44 Ibid, 116: 188.
45 Ibid, 117: 189–191. Sections 116 and 117 of the book are translated in Cleaves, Secret History of the Mongols, pp. 49–50; Rachewiltz, Secret History of the Mongols, pp. 41–42.
46 Menggu mishi jiaokan ben, 96: 129–130; Cleaves, Secret History of the Mongols, pp. 32–33; Rachewiltz, Secret History of the Mongols, p. 28.
47 Bacon, E., Obok: A Study of Social Structure in Eurasia (New York, 1958), p. 62Google Scholar.
48 Birtalan, ‘Rituals of sworn brotherhood’, pp. 52, 55.
49 Ibid, p. 52.
50 The Secret History writes this character with a 馬 on the left and a 昷 on the right.
51 Menggu mishi jiaokan ben, 141: 267; Cleaves, Secret History of the Mongols, p. 68; Rachewiltz, Secret History of the Mongols, p. 59.
52 Pelliot, P. and Hambis, L., Histoire des campagnes de Genghis khan: Cheng-wou Ts'in-tcheng lou (Leiden, 1951), p. 232Google Scholar, note 1.
53 Dang Baohai 党寶海, ‘Gudai Menggu de yinjin wei shi’ 古代蒙古的飲金為誓, Ouya xuekan VI (2017), pp. 132–134.
54 Yuanshi, 167: 3916; 刺臂血和金屑飲之.
55 Birtalan, ‘Rituals of sworn brotherhood’, p. 48.
56 This acted-out affection made the murder of J̌amuγa by Temüǰin in the Secret History even more impressive to its readers. Atwood grouped it with the deaths of Begter (half-brother of Temüǰin) and Tolui in the three fratricidal episodes that the Secret History implicitly presents as ground-breaking events for the Mongol empire. In doing this, the Secret Historian also confirmed the equivalence between a brother and an anda; see C. P. Atwood, ‘The sacrificed brother in the “Secret History of the Mongols”’, Mongolian Studies XXX–XXXI (2008–2009), pp. 189–206.
57 Birtalan, ‘Rituals of sworn brotherhood’, p. 49.
58 Isono, ‘Anda kō’, pp. 76–78.
59 Ibid, pp. 70–71.
60 Ibid, p. 59; Uno Nobuhiro, ‘Chingisu Kan ie no tsūkon kankei ni mirareru taishōteki kon'in engumi’ チンギス・カン家の通婚関係にみられる対称的婚姻縁組, Kokuritsu minzokugaku hakubutsukan kenkyū hōkoku bessatsu 国立民族学博物館研究報告別冊 XX (1999), p. 58, n. 11. In Old Turkic, ‘to swear an oath’ was ant antïk-, where the element ‘ant’ was repeated twice: first as the noun ‘oath’ and second as the verb ‘to pledge’; M. Erdal, A Grammar of Old Turkic (Leiden and Boston, 2004), p. 532.
61 In Kitan Small Script, these words are written /n.ug.ur/ (295.161.114) and /n.ug.ʤi/ (295.161.178), respectively. Kitan Small Script words are written by using the numeration provided by Činggeltei et al., Qidan xiaozi zai yanjiu. Readings of Small Script characters are from Yoshimoto Chieko 吉本智慧子 (alias Aisin-Gioro Ulhicun), ‘Kittan shōji no onka suitei oyobi sōkan mondai’ 契丹小字の音価推定及び相関問題, Ritsumeikan Bungaku 立命館文学 DCXVII 7 (2012), pp. 129–157.
62 Jirüke, ‘Qidanyu “nake'er” kao’ 契丹語’那可兒’考, Mengguxue jikan 1 (2014).
63 The Liaoshi renders the Kitan name of Yelü Renxian as: ‘surname Jiulin 乣鄰, little name Chala 查剌’ (Liaoshi, 96: 1535). These transcriptions respectively correspond to two Kitan names: /t.iu.r.iń/ (291.020.159.264) and /ʧɑl.ɑ/ (215.223). Činggeltei et al., Qidan xiaozi zai yanjiu, p. 418; see also Ōtake Masami, ‘Kittango no hōshi hyōgen’ 契丹語の奉仕表現, Kotonoha CXLIX (2015), p. 6.
64 Ji Shi 即實, ‘“Jiulin muzhi” jiaochaoben ji qita’ 《乣鄰墓志》校抄本及其他, Nei Menggu daxue xuebao 1 (1991), pp. 79–105.
65 The Liaoshi calls Yelü Sizhong by the Chinese transcription of his Kitan little name: Guiyin 瑰引 (e.g. Liaoshi, 96: 1535). The Kitan Small Script epitaph of the King of Liang 梁國王 provides Sizhong's full Kitan name: *Caran Kuin /ʧal.a.an k.ui.in/ (215.223.341 398.308.019). Činggeltei et al., Qidan xiaozi zai yanjiu, p. 1420.
66 For the Kitan Small Script full text and its tentative translation, see ibid, p. 80, line 5.
67 The exact signification of *pir- /p.ir/ (348.278) is still unclear. From the context and a comparison with the biography in the Liaoshi, the most probable interpretation is as Ji Shi suggested: ‘to prick’ or ‘to pierce’.
68 Ji Shi attempted the following Chinese translation: 重熙皇帝以刺血友故追封為燕王. Ji Shi, Milin wenjing: Qidan xiaozi jiedu xincheng 密林問徑—契丹小字解讀行程 (Shenyang, 1996), p. 207.
69 The epitaph only mentions his surname /ȵ.ɑr.gu.n/ (264.143.290.264), where /ȵ.ar/ means ‘sun’ and is here used as a name; Činggeltei et al., Qidan xiaozi zai yanjiu, p. 421.
70 Han, Baoxing 韓寳興, ‘Qidan xiaozi “Yelü Renxian muzhi” kaoshi’ 契丹小字’耶律仁先墓誌’考釋, Nei Menggu daxue xuebao 1 (1991), p. 71Google Scholar.
71 The Chinese epigraphy of the Kitan empire bears no direct mention of cixue you 刺血友. It is perhaps the translation of a Kitan word used by Yelü Yan 耶律儼 (né Li 李) during the compilation of the Huangchao shilu 皇朝實錄 within the first decade of Emperor Tianzuo's reign (1101–1125). The Huangchao shilu eventually became one of the main sources for the Yuan Dynasty historians who wrote the new Liaoshi (the old Liaoshi refers to Jin Dynasty Chen Daren's 陳大任 work); Miao Runbo, Liaoshi tanyuan, p. 28.
72 According to Honggu's biography of the Liaoshi (95: 1527), his little name is Hudujin 胡篤堇. *Qudugin is a common Kitan name, written (399.326.264) according to Činggeltei et al. (2018), who do not recognise the combination of 335 and 277 as a character by itself while acknowledging it reads ‘胡睹古’; Činggeltei et al., Qidan xiaozi zai yanjiu, p. 317. Aisin-Gioro (2012) reads it /qutug/; Aisin-Gioro, ‘Kittan shōji no onka suitei oyobi sōkan mondai’, p. 17.
73 Liaoshi, 95: 1527, 聖宗嘗刺臂血與弘古盟為友，禮遇尤異，拜南府宰相，改上京留守.
74 Song huiyao jigao, Shanghai: 2014, ‘fanyi’ 1: 9722b. The passage is also cited in the biography of Song Qi in the Songshi (264: 9124). 奚、霫部落，當劉仁恭及男守光之時，皆刺面為義兒. Liu Rengong and Liu Shouguang ruled over the Yan region as the military commissioners (jiedushi 節度使) of Youzhou 幽州 from 885 to 907 and from 907 to 913, respectively. Youzhou military commissioners have ruled as de facto independent leaders for more than a century when Shouguang proclaimed itself as emperor of the state of Yan 燕 (911–913). For a short presentation, see N. Tackett, The Destruction of the Medieval Chinese Aristocracy (Cambridge, MA and London, 2014), pp. 151–155.
75 Zheng Chengyan 鄭承燕, Liaodai guizu sangzang zhidu yanjiu 遼代貴族喪葬制度研究 (Beijing, 2014), pp. 181–182.
76 Zhoushu 周書, Beijing: 1974, 50: 910. 以刀
面，且哭，血淚俱流，如此者七度，乃止.
77 Liaoshi, 10: 119; used as an example by Wang Guowei. 於太后前易弓矢鞍馬，約以為友.
78 Liaoshi, 15: 193; used as an example by Wang Guowei. 以麻都骨世勳，易衣馬為好.
79 The Jin Dynasty is commonly believed to have been founded in 1115. However, Qiu Jingjia has convincingly demonstrated that the 1115–1117 period has been retroactively added to rewrite the founding of the ‘Golden Empire’ of the Jurchen; Qiu Jingjia 邱靖嘉, ‘Gaixie yu chongsu: Zailun Jinchao kaiguo niandai jiqi xiangguan wenti’ 改寫與重塑：再論金朝開國年代及其相關問題, Wen Shi Zhe CCCLXXXIX (2022), pp. 45–59; Qiu Jingjia 邱靖嘉, ‘On revision and reconstruction: a discussion about the founding year of the Jin Dynasty and related questions’, Journal of the Chinese Humanities IX (2023), pp. 41–60.
80 E.g. Liaoshi, 15: 193; 24: 330; both were used by Wang Guowei. The second event involves the last emperor when he was still the heir and *Cubug /ʧ.pu.gu/ (188.230.196) (Zubu 阻卜, the Kitan name of Tatars) lords, who unite themselves by friendship. This event attests to the meaning of such an alliance for Turco–Mongol people other than Kitans.
81 This subject has been explored in more detail in my PhD thesis. The latter, however, focuses on the integration of the Han family within the Yelü imperial house, while this part focuses on pseudo-kinships established between Han and Yelü and exploits additional materials; A. Dupuis, ‘L'empire de deux familles: La dynamique matrimoniale entre les clans Yelü et Xiao de l'Empire khitan (916-1125)’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Paris Sciences et Lettres, École Pratique des Hautes Études, 2023), pp. 378–395.
82 Crossley's article on the Han family describes their known member in great detail. Although she mentioned the multiple pseudo-kinship relationships between the Han and the Yelü, she did not comment on it; Crossley, P., ‘Outside in: power, identity, and the Han lineage of Jizhou’, Journal of Song-Yuan Studies XLIII (2013), pp. 51–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
83 Han Kuangsi's biography in the Liaoshi says: ‘The empress (Yingtian) saw him as a son’ (皇后視之猶子); Liaoshi, 74: 1360. According to Kang Peng, line 3 of the epitaph of Dilie 迪烈 (*Dire), son of Dilu, says the imperial heir became a sworn brother with Han Kuangsi, whose Kitan name was *Tiyenin Yauji /t.jæ.æn.in j.au.ʤi/ (291.391.87.264 21.187.177). Kang Peng translated *ñe or *nie /ȵ.ə/ (264.420) as ‘brothers with different patronyms’ (異姓兄弟). Kang Peng 康鵬, ‘Qidan xiaozi “di huanghou” kao’ 契丹小字’地皇后’考, Xibei shida xuebao 西北師大學報 (2016/2005), p. 109.
84 Han Derang's name changed multiple times; he got his Yelü family name from the dowager, but was bestowed with the Jingzong's sons’ link name long 隆 after her death.
85 Wan Xiongfei 萬雄飛 and Si Weiwei 司偉偉, ‘Liaodai Han Derang muzhi kaoshi’ 遼代韓德讓墓誌考釋, Kaogu, 2020/05, p. 113; Liao-Jin shi gongfang 遼金史工坊, ‘Liaodai “Han Derang muzhi” shujie’ 遼代《韓德讓墓誌》疏解, Liaoning sheng bowuguan guankan 遼寧省博物館館刊 XIV (2020), p. 91. 雖天子，必有長也，言有兄也 … 乃連御諱，賜名隆運.
86 Liaoshi, 15: 183. It should be noted that the brotherhood between Shengzong and Han Derang emerged following, and probably because of, the death of the dowager. This new emperor–minister personal alliance bore strong political implications and could not have been the conclusion of a pre-existing adoption of Derang by Empress Chengtian.
87 Aisin-Gioro, Kittanbun boshi yori mita Ryōshi, pp. 7–8.
88 The discovery of the funerary inscription of Yelü Longyou 耶律隆祐 further nuances the importance of this bestowment. Longyou's original name was Han Dening 韓德凝; he was the younger brother of Derang. According to the inscription, he died in 1001 and received both the imperial surname and the long character. Agen, Zhou, Liaodai muzhi jiaozhu 遼代墓誌校註 (Beijing, 2022), p. 140Google Scholar. This meant that, in 1009, Han Derang had at least one brother named ‘Yelü Long…’, albeit posthumously.
89 The Liaoshi writes Han Dilu's Kitan name as Zunning Dilu 遵寧滌魯 and the epitaph of Lady Wuluben 烏盧本娘子 as Xunning Diligu 遜寧迪里姑. Xiang Nan 向南, Zhang Guoqing 張國慶, and Li Yufeng 李宇峰 (eds.), Liaodai shikewen xubian 遼代石刻怎續編 (Shenyang, 2009), p. 205. His Kitan names correspond to /s.ǝŋ.in/ (288.310.264) and /t.il.ug/ (291.356.199), and can be reconstructed as *Sengin Tirug. Liu Fengzhu 劉鳳翥, Tang Cailan 唐彩蘭, and Gaowa 高娃, ‘Liaodai Xiao Wuluben deng san ren de muzhiming kaoshi’, Liao-Jin lishi yu kaogu VII (2017), p. 378.
90 Lady Wuluben's Kitan Small Script name appears on her husband Han Dilie's 韓迪烈 epitaph (di 迪 15) as *Urbin /ur.l.b.in/ (090.306.368.264). Liu et al., ‘Liaodai Xiao Wuluben deng san ren de muzhiming kaoshi’, p. 381. The Kitan respectfully called married woman *au'ui /au.ui/ (245.308) and Han translated this title as niangzi 娘子; therefore, Lady Wuluben was called *Urbin au'ui. Aisin-Gioro, Kittanbun boshi yori mita Ryōshi, pp. 302–305.
91 Liaoshi, 82: 1424.
92 Liu et al., Liao Shangjing diqu chutu de Liaodai beike huiji, pp. 22–25.
93 Liu Fengzhu, Tang Cailan, and Qinggele 青格勒, Liao Shangjing diqu chutu de Liaodai beike huiji 遼上京地區出土的遼代碑刻匯輯 (Beijing, 2009), pp. 26–37.
94 The first character of his original name is yuan 元, which the sons of Han Pangjin 韓雱金 (or Fangjin 方金) all share. Liu et al., ‘Liaodai Xiao Wuluben deng san ren de muzhiming kaoshi’, p. 378.
95 Even the sworn brotherhood in the ‘Oath of the Peach Orchard’ appeared immoral to some Chinese. The Qing politician and thinker Zhang Xuecheng 章學誠 (1798–1801), in his Bingchen zhaji 丙辰札記, vigorously criticised it, saying: ‘The Oath of the Peach Orchard is the most untamed act of all the Romance, where [oath takers] even forgot the sovereign-vassal relationship and directly called each other as brothers do.’ Zhang shi yishu 章氏遺書 (Beijing, 1985), 3: 127. 演義之最不可訓者，桃園結義，甚至忘其君臣，而直稱兄弟. See also Chen Songbai 陳松柏, Shuihu zhuan yuanliu kaolun 水滸傳源流考論 (Beijing, 2006), p. 18.
96 Qidan guo zhi, 8: 91–92. This record is possibly fiction or a distorted narrative about Xingzong. However, as the examples raised above already proved, this record could depict a true feature of Kitan friendship culture.
97 É. de la Vaissière, ‘Čākar’, Encyclopædia Iranica, 2006, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cakar (accessed 15 April 2022).
98 Skaff, Sui-Tang China, pp. 225–227.
99 Yin Lei 尹磊, ‘“Fu-zi” erji jiegou yu Beizu zhengquan shijie zhixu de queli’ 父—子’二級結構與北族政權世界秩序的確立, Zhongguo wenhua 中國文化 LII (2020), pp. 46–47.
100 This information appears in two of the major works on Tang history: the Tongdian 通典 achieved by Du You 杜佑 (735–812) in 801 and the Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 (Old Book of the Tang) written by a group of court annalists led by Liu Xu 劉昫 (888–947) between 941 and 945. Tongdian (Beijing, 1988), 198: 5441; Jiu Tangshu (Beijing, 1975), 194: 5175.
101 This text has been kept in the compendium of Zhang Jiuling's works: Tang chengxiang Qujiang Zhang xiansheng wenji 唐丞相曲江張先生文集 (Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo, Niida shū N4003), 11: 3.
102 Yin Lei 尹磊, ‘“Fu-zi” erji jiegou yu Beizu zhengquan shijie zhixu de queli’, pp. 46–48.
103 See D. C. Wright, ‘Parity, pedigree, and peace: routine sung diplomatic missives to the Liao’, Journal of Song-Yuan Studies XXVI (1996); D. C. Wright, ‘The Sung-Kitan war of A.D. 1004–1005 and the Treaty of Shan-Yüan’, Journal of Asian History I (1998); Wright, D. C., From War to Diplomatic Parity in Eleventh-Century China: Sung's Foreign Relations with Kitan Liao (Leiden, 2005)Google Scholar.
104 Nie Chongqi 聶崇歧, ‘Song-Liao jiaopin kao’ 宋遼交聘考, Yanjing xuebao 燕京學報 XXVII (1940), pp. 1–50.
105 Tao Jing-shen (Tao Jinsheng), Two Sons of Heaven: Studies in Sung-Liao Relations (Tucson, 1988), p. 107; Zhang Guoqing 張國慶, ‘Liaodai Qidan huangdi yu Wudai-Bei Song zhu diwang de “jieyi”’ 遼代契丹皇帝與五代北宋諸帝王的’結義, Shixue yuekan 史學月刊 6 (1992), pp. 26–32; Mōri Eisuke 毛利英介, ‘Sen'en no mei no rekishiteki haikei: Unchū no kaimei kara Sen'en no mei e’ 澶淵の盟の歴史的背景—雲中の会盟から澶淵の盟へ, Shirin 史林 LXXXIX (2006), pp. 83–85.
106 Xiang, Nan 向南, Liaodai shikewen bian 遼代石刻文編 (Shijiazhuang, 1995)Google Scholar, p. 194. 尊聖善而庶稱兒侄，敦友愛而願作弟兄. Although the epitaph of Shengzong was written in Chinese, its content reflects Kitan thoughts covered behind a veil of Chinese literature. The word for ‘brothers’ is written dixiong 弟兄, maybe in order to put Shengzong first, as he was younger than Renzong. Akisada Jitsuzō cites the same passage; Akisada J., ‘Sen'en no meiyaku to sono shiteki igi (jō)’, Shirin 1 (1935), p. 36, note 62.
107 On the diverse points of view held in the Kaifeng court on the Kitan, see Jinsheng, Tao, Song-Liao guanxi shi yanjiu 宋遼關係史研究 (Beijing, 2008), pp. 83–105Google Scholar.
108 Mōri, ‘Sen'en no mei no rekishiteki haikei’, p. 84.
109 The announcements written by Renzong of the Song to inform Shengzong of the death of his father and of his enthronement used these kinship terms the first. Song da zhaoling ji 宋大詔令集 (Beijing: 1962), 228: 882–883. Therefore, the decision to call the Kitan ruler an ‘uncle’ was made by the Song court, decided either during the Chanyuan Covenant or sometime in between.
110 Song da zhaoling ji, 232: 902–904.
111 See the useful table presenting fictive kinship between the Song emperors and the Kitan dowagers in Wright, ‘Parity, pedigree, and peace’, p. 69.
112 Ibid, p. 67.
113 Ibid, pp. 67–72.
114 Liaoshi, 1: 1. 易袍馬，約為兄弟.
115 Jiu Wudaishi, 76: 992. 脫白貂裘以衣帝. Ouyang Xiu and Sima Guang reported the same event. Xin Wudaishi, 72: 1008–1009; Zizhi tongjian, 280: 9161–9162.
116 Wudai huiyao, 29: 6–1 (consulted on Dingxiu guji quanwen jiansu pingtai database, text based on a copy of the ‘Qing Wuying Dian juzhenban congshu’ printed edition).
117 This referenced an account of the Shiji 史記 in which the king of Chu seals the alliance with Zhao by smearing the blood of several animals on his mouth; Yue, ‘Woguo gudai Yixing xiongdi jiebai zhi kaolun’, p. 333.
118 Animal blood was used by Kitans in religious rituals, such as the annual prayers made by the emperor to the Heishan 黑山, during the winter solstice. The description of this ritual was first imported in Jiayou 嘉祐 6 (1061) in Song China by Wu Gui 武珪, in his Yanbei zalu 燕北雜錄; see Miao Runbo, ‘Shuofu ben Wang Yi Yanbei lu mingshi wenti fafu’ 《說郛》本王易《燕北録》名實問題發覆, Wenshi CXX.3 (2017), p. 154. During the Yuan period, this description was copied by pseudo-Ye Longli in the Qidan guo zhi (Beijing: 2014, 27: 284) and through it made its way into the Liaoshi (53: 975).
119 Jiu Wudaishi, 76: 992. 執手相泣，久不能別.
120 See note 108.
121 See note 111.
122 During the negotiations, the Kitans camped to the north of the prefecture seat of Chan, where the Song emperor and his ministers were. Although at a short distance from one another, the rulers did not meet. On the negotiation process, see Tao Jinsheng, Songdai waijiao shi, pp. 45–47; Wright, ‘Sung-Kitan war of A.D. 1004–1005’, pp. 16–25; Wright, From War to Diplomatic Parity, pp. 60–71 passim.
123 Franke, H., ‘The Chin Dynasty’, in Cambridge History of China, (eds.) Franke and Twitchett, vol. 6, p. 222Google Scholar.
124 Jinshi (Beijing: 1975), 3: 62.
125 Jinshi, 4: 70.
126 For a general history of the Song–Jin diplomacy, see Zhao Yongchun 趙永春, ‘Song-Jin jiaopin zhidu shulun’ 宋金交聘制度述論, Liao-Jin shi lunji 遼金史論集 IV (1989), pp. 248–260.
127 Franke, ‘Chin Dynasty’, p. 261.
128 Sanchao beimeng huibian (Shanghai, 1987), 15: 103. 不知或為弟兄，或為叔侄，或為知友.
129 Zhao Yongchun, ‘Song-Jin jiaopin zhidu shulun’, pp. 248–250.
130 Li, Hui 李輝, Nan Song pinshi zhidu yanjiu: Yi Nan Song yu Jinchao wei zhongxin de taolun 南宋聘使制度研究—以南宋與金朝為中心的討論 (Hong Kong, 2010), pp. 53–55Google Scholar.
131 Jinshi, 38: 873; 62: 1487.
132 The change from a suzerain–vassal to an uncle–nephew relationship only slightly altered the court rites imposed by the Jin on the Song. This caused the latter to frequently complain that the rites did not match the etiquette between uncles and nephews. See Zhao Yongchun, Song-Jin guanxi shi, pp. 264–69.
133 Liaoshi, 20: 280. 朕與宋主約為兄弟，歡好歲久，欲見其繪像，可諭來使.