Tribute
- Japanese/Chinese: 貢 (mitsugi / gong)
"Tribute" refers to gifts, whether in the form of coin or precious metals, or that of goods such as rice, silk, aromatic woods, or horses, presented from one polity to another in acknowledgment of the superiority and suzerainty of the latter. Trade between China and most other polities, for the most part, for many centuries, formally and officially only took place in this manner. Giving tribute to the Chinese Court was an essential prerequisite for engaging in trade; once tribute was presented to be given to the Emperor, ships were permitted to trade or barter a considerable portion of their cargo, or to have it bartered for them by the local Chinese port official, as "private business."
Examples of tributary relationships can be seen especially in the relationship between Ming China and Muromachi period Japan (see kangô bôeki), and took place as well between the Kingdom of Ryûkyû and certain outlying islands, such as the Miyako Islands or Yaeyama Islands, which were not controlled directly, but which might be considered tributaries of the Kingdom.
Ming China
The Sinocentric world order and system of tributary relations was, in theory, in place from as early as the Han Dynasty (206 BCE - 220 CE) until the late Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), but was strongest in the early Ming Dynasty, i.e. from 1368 until sometime around 1550. As Angela Schottenhammer explains, prior to the Ming dynasty, the Sino-centric worldview and tribute system were more a claim than a reality, and after the 1550s or so, Chinese maritime/economic power weakened.[1]
Ming China regarded Korea, Japan, and Ryûkyû (through which it obtained access to Southeast Asian goods) as its most important tributaries, and categorized all of its tributary states into six categories:
- (1) The first category included 18 East and Southeast Asian polities, including Korea, Japan, Ryûkyû, Annam, Champa, Cambodia, Thailand, and Java.
- (2) The second category included the remaining Southeast Asian polities, especially island polities such as those in the modern-day Philippines, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.
- (3) & (4) The third and fourth categories included Jurchens, Tatars, and other tribal peoples to the north.
- (5) & (6) The fifth and sixth categories included tribal peoples and other groups to the west.[2]
Tribute missions were permitted on a regular, but limited schedule, thus limiting all official (legal) trade as well. For the most part, Korea and Ryûkyû were permitted to send missions once every two years; at times, for various political reasons, this was changed to once every three years. Similarly, Muromachi Japan was permitted, at times, to send missions only once every ten years. The system was managed by a Maritime Trade Office, or shibo si (市舶司); originally there was only one such office, but before long shibo si offices were established in the major ports of Fuzhou, Quanzhou, Ningpo and Guangzhou.[2]
Foreign ships were required to send a certain portion of their cargoes as tribute, and a portion of their personnel as envoys, to the Imperial capital, though the remainder of the cargo could be sold privately, that is, independently, for profit, by the foreigners, or by the Chinese port officials on the foreigners' behalf. The Ming court paid for travel expenses, often providing horses and ships, but limited missions to 150 people.
Qing China
After the fall of the Ming, the Manchus lost no time in establishing policies and regulations for tributary relations. The Qing Court essentially continued the tributary relations of the Ming period, maintaining or putting into place procedures for receiving tribute ships and storing their cargoes, banning goods of strategic importance from leaving the country, and setting regulations for the size of incoming tribute missions.[3]
References
- Schottenhammer, Angela. "The East Asian maritime world, 1400-1800: Its fabrics of power and dynamics of exchanges - China and her neighbors." in Schottenhammer (ed.) The East Asian maritime world, 1400-1800: Its fabrics of power and dynamics of exchanges. Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007. pp1-83.
