The first concern of agriculture is to produce food. Only when there is a surplus in food supply can advances in other aspects of development be made. Professor Perkins’ study on agricultural development in China during the past six hundred years has shown that Chinese agriculture was able to raise grain output most of the time to keep pace with population growth.1 In the Han river area, although rice and wheat were staple food crops, maize and potatoes were already widely grown on hilly lands by the nineteenth century.2 During the nineteenth century, probably about half of the population in the Han River area relied on maize4 and potatoes for their sustenance.3 this survey of data on the grain trade may serve two purposes: first, to clarify the limitations of available information; second, to help us understand the conditions of food supply in the Han river area during the nineteenth century.
Rice
The whole Han River basin extends below the natural division line – the Tsin-ling and Huai-ho – of north and south China. Natural conditions provide a suitable ground for rice cultivation. In the upper Han valley of southern Shensi rice was grown. Not only were natural conditions favorable for rice cultivation, but irrigation system of various sizes were constructed extensively in Han-chung prefecture and to a lesser extent in Hsing-an prefecture.
The Han-chung hsü-hsiu fu-chih (1813) contained a detailed chapter on irrigation. Added together, the total irrigated acreage amounts to about 200,000 mou.4 According to the Ch’in-chiang chih-lüeh, there were approximately 337,000 mou of irrigated paddies in Han-chung prefecture during the 1820s.5 The Shan-sheng pien-fang pei-lan mentioned that in the upper Han River valley, the yield of rice per mou was 3 shih.6 The Nan-cheng hsien-chih (1921) said that the yield of rice per mou
__________
1 Dwight Perkins, Agricultural Development in China, 1368-1968, chapter 2.
2 Evelyn Rawski, “Agricultural Development and Official Action in Eighteenth Century china: The Case of the Han River Highlands’ (unpublished paper read in the AAS Conference in Chicago, March 1973), pp. 7-24. This paper has utilized most of the available information about agriculture in the upper Han River area from local gazetteers, although some details still need further study.
3 Yen Ju-i, San-sheng pien-fang pei-lan, 8:4b; T’ung-shan hsien-chih (1867), 2: 67b-68; Hu-pei t’ung-chih (1921), 22: 13b.
4 Han-chung hsü-hsiu fu-chih (1813), 20: 12-42.
5 Lu K’un, Ch’in-chiang chih-lüeh, pp. 51-57.
6 Yen Ju-i, 8:12. The same source is also quoted in the Yang-hsien-chih (1898), 4: 2.
123
was 2 to 2.5 shih.7 The Japanese investigation in 1913 indicated that the yield of rice per mou in Han-chung was 1 shih (probably husked).8 From these sources, one may assume that the output of rice in Han-chung prefecture amounted to approximately 600,000 to 900,000 shih annually during the nineteenth century. Lack of additional information, however, makes it difficult to prove the validity of this estimation.9 A certain amount of the rice produced in Han-chung was transported overland to Sian, but no details about this trade are known.10
Documentation for Hsing-an prefecture is even more scarce. The Hsin-an fu-chih (1788) showed that the irrigated acreage of each dam was rather small, the total acreage added up to only about 15,700 mou.11 The San-sheng pien-fang pei-lan provided an estimate of around 80,000 mou as the total acreage under irrigation in Han-yin, P’ing-li, An-k’ang, and Shih-ch’üan districts.12 The Ch’in-chiang chih-lüeh did not give any precise acreage of the paddies in Hsing-an-fu although it did mention that there were several hundred thousand mou in Han-yin.13 Although rice produced in Hsing-an was probably not as abundant as in Han-chung, it was exported to Hsiang-yang. For instance, the An-k’ang hsien-chih (1815) mentioned that merchants from the prefectural city were used to buying rice from the peasants in advance when crops were still green, a practice known as mai-ch’ing 買青. In this way the merchants obtained great profits by shipping the rice down the river to Hsiang-yang.14 Moreover, rice was sold easily as long as there were demands for it from urban centers. For instance, the Tzu-yang hsien-chih (1882) said that rice paddies in the district were very small in acreage. Although some villages produced rice, the villagers never consumed it but sold it.15
During the Ch’ing dynasty, the T’ang-pai-ho valley produced a very small amount of rice. This was due mainly to the decay of the local irrigation system.
According to the Nan-yang shien-chih (1904), the irrigation system had not been repaired significantly since the early Ch’ing period because landowners came mostly from Shansi and Shensi and they did not realize the importance of irrigation. Tenants changed frequently, and although they wanted to repair the irrigation works, there were not able to do it alone. Moreover, whenever there was proposal for repairs,
__________
7 Nan-cheng hsien-chih (1921), 5: 1.
8 Shina shōbetsu zenshi, VII, p. 409.
9 An investigation in 1932 shows that the annual output of rice was 130,000 shih in Hsi-hsiang and 288,380 shih in Ch’eng-ku. See Ho Ch’ing-yün, Shan-hsi shih-yeh k’ao-ch’a-chi, pp. 37, 41. Although the output of other districts is not known, it seems that a total of 600,000 shih would not be too large.
10 Shina shōbetsu zenshi, VII, p. 413.
11 Hsing-an fu-chih (1788), chüan 6, 7,8.
12 Yen Ju-i, 8: 4b-5.
13 Lu K’un, p. 60.
14 An-k’ang hsien-chih (1815), 10: 3a-b.
15 Tzu-yang hsien-chih (1904), 9: 6b-7.
124
conflicts of interest among villages could not be easily solved.16 Thus, in Nan-yang rice was rarely grown. An estimate by P’an Shou-lien indicates that in 1904 the annual output of rice in Nan-yang hsien was only 5,000 shih and this amount was mainly consumed in the district city.17 It can be assumed that rice was probably not an important export product.
As for the rice trade in Hupeh, it is noteworthy that in the early nineteenth century, rice from Chu-shan and Chu-hsi – two districts in hilly northwestern Hupeh – was even demanded by Hsün-yang and Pai ho in southern Shensi.18 In the I-ch’eng-hsien hsiang-t’u-chih (1906), an estimate of farm products in this district showed that in good years the annual output of rice amounted to 1,000,000 shih, of which 300,000 shih was consumed in the district city and other market towns, and 100,000 shih was sent to Hankow.19 In other words, 30 percent of annual output of rice from I-ch’eng was marketed within the district and 10 percent was entered into the long-distance trade. Since I-ch’eng was the most productive rice district in Hsiang-yang prefecture,20 these percentages probably represented a higher than average marketing rate. The total percentage of marketed rice from I-ch’eng, i. e., 40 percent, is 25 percent higher than the average percentage of rice marketed in China during 1931-1937.21
According to the Japanese investigations of 1908-1915, rice arriving annually at markets in Fan-ch’eng and Sha-yang was estimated at 100,000 shih for each locale. It seems likely that part of this amount was further shipped to Hankow. Although the same source did not indicate this clearly, it did give the freight charge for shipping rice to Hankow.22
Since Hankow was the greatest city along the Han River, knowledge of the rice sent to this city may be helpful in understanding the rice trade in Hupeh. The 1908-1915 Japanese investigations indicated that Hankow received rice from Hunan, Kiangsi, Anhui, Szechwan, and Hupeh provinces. Among the sources of supply in Hupeh were Hsiang-yang-fu, Ching-chou-fu, Huang-p’i-hsien, Hsiao-kan-hsien, An-lu-fu, Huang-chou-fu, and Wu-ch’ang-fu. The quantity of rice arriving from these places were estimated as follows: That from the Shasi area was between 50,000 to 60,000 shih, that from the Hsiang-yang-fu area was 300,000 shih, and that from other places in Hupeh was 400,000 shih.23 This indicates the directions of rice movement in Hupeh. If these quantities are more or less representative of the situation in the 1900s,
__________
17 P’an Shou-lien, Nan-yang-shien hu-k’ou ti-t’u wu-ch’an hsü-mu piao-t’u-shuo, p. 3.
18 Yen Ju-i, San-sheng shan-nei feng-t’u tsa-shih, p. 19b.
19 I-ch’eng-hsien hsiang-t’u-chih (1906), 4: 21b-22.
20 Hu-pei nung-hui-pao (1910), 2: 63b.
21 Dwight Perkins, Agricultural Development in China, 1368-1968, p. 157.
22 Shina shōbetsu zenshi, IX, pp. 558-560.
23 Ibid., pp. 544-545.
125
then the annual shipments of rice on the Han River was about 300,000 shih.
It is impossible to estimate precisely the annual output of rice in Hupeh as Mizuno Kōkichi has pointed out in his book, the Kankō.24 In the 1908-1915 Japanese investigations, the annual output of rice in Hupeh was estimated at 89,165,850 shih.
This figure was derived as follows: (1) The total cultivated acreage in Hupeh was 59,443,900 mou according to the Hu-pu tse-li. (2) It was estimated that 50 percent of the total cultivated acreage was rice cultivated acreage. (3) The yield of rice per mou was estimated to be 3 shih (unhusked).25 this estimate can be revised.
According to the Ta-ch’ing hui-tien, the cultivated acreage in Hupeh was 58,103,764 mou in 1887. Excluded from this figure was the acreage of reed fields (lu-t’ien 蘆田).26 According to the adjustment made by Professor Perkins, the cultivated acreage in Hupeh was 51 million mou in 1873 and 65 million mou in 1957.27 As for the average yield of rice per mou in Hupeh, the Shinkoku jijō said that it was 1.2 shih (probably husked).28 It is necessary to determine the percentage of cultivated rice acreage in terms of the total acreage. No information of this sort is available for the Ch’ing dynasty. According to the Hua-chung ti-ch’ü ching-chi ti-li, in 1957, cultivated rice acreage was about 30 percent of the total acreage in Hupeh, and it was more than 50 percent in both Hunan and Kiangsi.29 It seems likely that the cultivated rice acreage in Hupeh did not exceed 50 percent of the total acreage during the late Ch’ing period. Assuming that rice acreage in Hupeh during the 1900s was 30 percent of the total acreage, there would be about 17.4 million mou of rice paddies that would yield annually about 20,880,000 shih of husked rice or about twice that amount if the rice was unhusked.30 Hence, in terms of husked rice, the above estimated amount of rice arriving in Hankow annually from various places in Hupeh, i.e., 800,000 shih would be only about 3.5 percent of the total output of rice in Hupeh, while in terms of unhusked rice, the percentage would be less than 2.
Moreover, both the Kankō and the Shinkoku jijō recorded the quantity of rice exported from Hankow during 1901-1905, and assumed that the source of supply was from Hupeh.31 But the statistics were quoted from the Maritime customs annual trade returns and both exports and re-exports were included. It is, therefore, misleading to take these amounts for granted in calculating rice production in Hupeh.32
__________
24 Mizuno Kōkichi, Kankō, p. 445.
25 Shina shōbetsu zenshi, IX, p. 542.
26 Li Wen-chih ed., Chung-kuo chin-tai nung-yeh-shih tzu-liao, I, pp. 62-63.
27 Dwight Perkins, Agricultural Development in China, 1368-1968, p. 236.
28 Shinkoku jijō, I, p. 916; also see Li Wen-chih ed., I. p. 621.
29 Sun Ching-chih, Hua-chung ti-ch’ü ching-chi ti-li (Peking, 1958), p. 20, p. 76, p. 120.
30 For a discussion of the ratio between husked and unhusked rice see, Dwight Perkins, p. 309.
31 Mizuno Kōkichi, Kankō, p. 445; Shinkoku jijō, I, pp. 889-890.
32 The Chung-kuo chin-tai nung-yeh-shih tzu-liao quotes the source from the Shinkoku jijō without pointing out this mistake, see I, p. 478.
126
In the Maritime Customs annual trade returns, prior to 1886, tice exported from Hankow was listed only in the years 1867, 1873, and 1873 with 26 piculs, 2,376 piculs, and 697 piculs respectively. There were also no exports of rice in 1910 an\and 1911. On the other hand, there were imports of rice from other ports, but during most of the years there were re-exports. Table A-1 shows the exports of rice from Hankow during 1886-1909; the re-exports are not included.
Table A-1: Exports of Rice from Hankow, 1886-1909 (not including re-exports)
Year
Source: Cols. 1 and 2 are from Imperial Maritime Customs, Reports and Returns of Trade, for each year, section on Hankow. Each figure includes rice and duty free rice, but not paddy rice which does not show up every year. The original figures have been rounded off. Cols. 3, 4, and 5 are my calculations based on Cols. 1 and 2. Col. 6 is from Li Wen-chih ed. Chung-kuo chin-tai nung-yeh-shih tzu-liao (Peking, 1957), I, p. 760. The original figures are expressed in portions of tenths.
Obviously, there are drastic fluctuations in volume. The fluctuations in volume do not coincide with the percentage changes of the autumn harvests in Hupeh during the same period. One can argue that exports of rice through the Maritime Customs do not include all possible exports. Still it is difficult to reconcile, as the differences are so great. Moreover, after 1898 prices were higher than before. But changes in price do not follow completely the percentage changes of harvest, either. It seems that there are
127
defects in the percentages given for the harvests. Therefore, relevant factors, such as severe flood, drought, or famine are concealed. An answer to the question of fluctuations in volume and in price cannot be found just in the changing conditions of the harvests in Hupeh alone. Hupeh was not the only source of supply of rice exported from Hankow even if re-exported are not taken into account
Moreover, a search in the Maritime Customs trade returns of the other ports reveals the following facts. (1) The port of Chungking was open in 1891, but there were no exports of rice from that port. (2) Ichang was opened in 1876 and exports of rice started only in 1899. (3) Between 1902 and 1908 there rice exports from Shasi but the quantity of each year was very small. (4) Yochow was opened in 1899 but exports of rice started only in 1902. (5) Changsha was opened in 1904 and exports of rice began in that year. Prior to the opening of the ports of Yochow and Changsha, exports of rice from Hunan probably went through Hankow. On August 6, 1895, the newspaper Shen-pao reported that a great amount of rice still arrived at Hankow from Hunan but very little was from Szechwan.33 this evidence shows that the Hankow rice market was rather complicated, and the marketing percentage cannot be easily gauged.
In summation, during normal years rice produced from the Han River valley was not only marketed within a district where it was grown but was put into long-distance trade using water transportation facilities. The rice marketed along the Han River was as high as 10 percent of the total output in the 1900s. The rice arriving at Hankow from various places in Hupeh was probably only two to three percent of the total output of rice in this province.
Wheat
Hupeh is the most important wheat producing province in central China.34 Local gazetteers of different districts in Hupeh often lit wheat next to rice. The Hsiang-yang fu-chih (1760 and 1885) said that wheat produced from this prefecture was of better quality than that of other places along the lower Han River.35 the Commercial Handbook of China revealed that wheat was grown more extensively in the Hankow area than had been thought.36
According to the 1908-1915 Japanese investigations, wheat arrived annually at the trade centers along the Han River in the amounts as follows:37
__________
34 Sun Ching-chih, Hua-chung ti-ch’ü ching-chi ti-li, p. 22.
35 Hsiang-yang fu-chih (1760), 6: 4; and (1885), 4: 5.
36 J. Arnold, Commercial handbook of China (Washington, D. C., 1919), pt. 1, p. 146.
37 Shina shōbetsu zenshi, IX, pp. 558-560.
128
Fan-ch’eng 400,000 shih (including wheat from Honan), I-ch’eng 30,000 to 40,000 shih,
Chung-hsiang 60,000 to 70,000 shih, Sha-yang 150,000 shih.
The total amount was approximately 650,000 shih. The same source indicates neither the amount of wheat that was consumed at each locality nor the amount that was transported to Hankow. The Japanese investigations in Honan during the same period mentioned that wheat arriving in She-ch’i-chen amounted to about 100,000 shih per year and this was mostly transshipped to Fan-ch’eng.38 thus, the wheat from the T’ang-pai-ho valley comprised about one-sixth of the total amount of wheat marketed along the Han river during the 1900s.
Wheat was also grown in the upper Han valley.39 there is no estimate of the quantity of wheat arriving at markets along the upper Han River. It is only known that the amount was very small.40
As for the percentage of wheat output that was marketed along the Han River, no precise information is available. The I-ch’eng-hsien hsiang-t’u-chih (1906) mentioned that in good year 8,000 shih of wheat was transported from I-ch’eng to Hankow. However, the same source did not give a separate estimate of the annual output of wheat. It only said that the annual output of wheat and beans together amounted to about 300,000 shih.41 If half of this amount is taken as the output of wheat, then approximately 5 percent entered into long-distance trade.
In the Maritime Customs annual returns, there was no mention of wheat exports from Hnkow prior to 1880. The export of wheat was interrupted during 1883-1891 and again during 1896-1897. Table A-2 shows exports of wheat from Hankow during 1898-1911. Because there was no re-export of wheat during the years, prior to January 1, 1904, when the Peking-Hankow railway was opened to Chu-ma-tien 駐馬店, Honan,42 the supply source of these exports must have been the Han River area.
The drastic fluctuations in volume in 1901 and 1910 were very likely due to floods that occurred in Hupeh during these two years.43 The notable increases in quantity during 1904-1905 were probably the results of the railway transportation which drew supplies of wheat from the plain of eastern Honan.44 Moreover, the
__________
38 Shina shōbetsu zenshi, VIII, p. 647.
39 Yen Ju-i, San-sheng pien-fang pei-lan, 8: 12b.
40 Shina shōbetsu zenshi, VII, p. 417.
41 I-ch’eng-hsien hsiang-t’u-chih (1906), 4: 21b-22.
42 Imperial Maritime Customs, Reports and Returns of Trade, for the year 1904, pt. 2, p. 275.
43 Imperial Maritime Customs, Reports and Returns of Trade, for the year 1902, pt. 2, p. 218; for the year 1910, pt. 2, p. 289; cf. Ping-ti Ho, Studies on the Population of China, appendix, IV, p. 300.
44 Imperial Maritime Customs, Reports and Returns of Trade, for the year 1904, pt. 2, p. 271. The report for the year 1905 says that almost all the wheat from Honan came by water due to the high railway freight charge, see pt. 2, p. 146.
129
modern flour mills established in Hankow from 1904 on probably encouraged shipments of wheat to Hankow, causing a considerable amount of wheat to be held for use in the mills.45 The export of 1911 was a great amount. It is obvious that a good crop of wheat was harvested in early summer, and that the Revolution which took
modern flour mills established in Hankow from 1904 on probably encouraged shipments of wheat to Hankow, causing a considerable amount of wheat to be held for use in the mills.45 The export of 1911 was a great amount. It is obvious that a good crop of wheat was harvested in early summer, and that the Revolution which took