[
    {
        "id": 204452,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1962",
        "page_number": 84,
        "title": "RAS-1962",
        "content_text": "CHINA'S 35 MILLION NON-CHINESE\n\nTABLE 1\n\n73\n\nCHINA'S MINORITY POPULATIONS IN ORDER OF SIZE,\n\n1. Chuang\n\n2. Wei-wu-erh (Uighur)\n\n3. Hui (Dungan)\n\n4. Yi (Lolo, etc.)\n\n1953\n\n5. Tsang (Tibetan)\n\n6. Miao\n\n7. Man (Manchu)\n\n8. Meng-ku (Mongol)\n\n9. Pu-yi\n\n10. Ch'ao-hsien (Korean)\n\n11. Tung\n\n12. Yao\n\n13. Pai (Pai-man)\n\n14. Ha-sa-k'e (Kazakh)\n\n15. Ha-ni\n\n16. T'ai\n\n17. Li\n\n18. Li-su\n\n19. Tu-chia\n\n20. She\n\n21. K'a-wa (Wa)\n\n22. Kao-shan (Malay-Polynesian)\n\n23. Tung-hsiang\n\n24. Na-hsi (Na-khi)\n\n25. La-hu\n\n26. Shui\n\n27. Ching-p'o (Singpho, Kachin)\n\n28. Ko-erh-k'e-tzu (Kirghiz)\n\n29. T'u (Mongor)\n\n30. Ta-kuan-erh (Daghor)\n\n31. Mo-lao\n\n32. Ch'iang\n\n33. Pu-lang (Palaung)\n\n34. Sa-la (Salar)\n\n35. Ngo-lo-ssu (Russian)\n\n36. K'e-lao\n\n37. Hsi-po (Sipo)\n\n38. Mao-nan\n\n39. A-chang\n\n40. T'a-chi-k'e (Tadjik)\n\n41. Wu-tzu-pieh-k'e (Uzbek)\n\n42. Nu\n\n43. T'a-t'a-erh (Tatar)\n\n44. O-wen-k'e (Evenki)\n\n45. Pao-an\n\n46. Yü-ku (Sara Uighur)\n\n47. Peng-lung\n\n48. Tu-lung\n\n...\n\n7,000,000\n\n3,640,000\n\n3,559,000\n\n3,250,000\n\n2,775,000\n\n2,511,000\n\n2,418,000\n\n1,463,000\n\n1,247,000\n\n1,120,000\n\n712,000\n\n665,000\n\n567,000\n\n509,000\n\n481,000\n\n478,000\n\n360,000\n\n317,000\n\n300,000 *\n\n286,000\n\n210,000\n\n200,000\n\n155,000\n\n143,000\n\n139,000\n\n133,000\n\n101,000\n\n70,000\n\n53,200\n\n44,100\n\n43,100\n\n35,600\n\n35,000\n\n30,600\n\n22,600\n\n20,800\n\n19,000\n\n18,400\n\n17,700\n\n14,400\n\n13,600\n\n12,700\n\n6,900\n\n6,200\n\n4,900\n\n3,800\n\n2,900\n\n2,400\n\n2,200\n\n450\n\nO-lun-ch'un (Orochun)\n\n50. Ho-che (Nanai)\n\n* Found by Fang Jen in 1955 to be 300,000, but Bruk listed 49,000.\n\n† From April 19, 1957 issue of Kuang-ming Daily News.\n\n† An estimate.\n\n§ Collectively including the So-lun (4,900), T'ung-ku-ssu (Tungus: 1,205), and Ya-k'u-te (Yakut; 137).\n\nHere is the revised response in HTML format using Markdown table syntax for the table:\n\n  \n    Order\n    Minority Population\n    Population (1953)\n  \n  \n    1\n    Chuang\n    7,000,000\n  \n  \n    2\n    Wei-wu-erh (Uighur)\n    3,640,000\n  \n  \n    3\n    Hui (Dungan)\n    3,559,000\n  \n  \n    4\n    Yi (Lolo, etc.)\n    3,250,000\n  \n  \n    5\n    Tsang (Tibetan)\n    2,775,000\n  \n  \n    6\n    Miao\n    2,511,000\n  \n  \n    7\n    Man (Manchu)\n    2,418,000\n  \n  \n    8\n    Meng-ku (Mongol)\n    1,463,000\n  \n  \n    9\n    Pu-yi\n    1,247,000\n  \n  \n    10\n    Ch'ao-hsien (Korean)\n    1,120,000\n  \n  \n    11\n    Tung\n    712,000\n  \n  \n    12\n    Yao\n    665,000\n  \n  \n    13\n    Pai (Pai-man)\n    567,000\n  \n  \n    14\n    Ha-sa-k'e (Kazakh)\n    509,000\n  \n  \n    15\n    Ha-ni\n    481,000\n  \n  \n    16\n    T'ai\n    478,000\n  \n  \n    17\n    Li\n    360,000\n  \n  \n    18\n    Li-su\n    317,000\n  \n  \n    19\n    Tu-chia\n    300,000 *\n  \n  \n    20\n    She\n    286,000\n  \n  \n    21\n    K'a-wa (Wa)\n    210,000\n  \n  \n    22\n    Kao-shan (Malay-Polynesian)\n    200,000\n  \n  \n    23\n    Tung-hsiang\n    155,000\n  \n  \n    24\n    Na-hsi (Na-khi)\n    143,000\n  \n  \n    25\n    La-hu\n    139,000\n  \n  \n    26\n    Shui\n    133,000\n  \n  \n    27\n    Ching-p'o (Singpho, Kachin)\n    101,000\n  \n  \n    28\n    Ko-erh-k'e-tzu (Kirghiz)\n    70,000\n  \n  \n    29\n    T'u (Mongor)\n    53,200\n  \n  \n    30\n    Ta-kuan-erh (Daghor)\n    44,100\n  \n  \n    31\n    Mo-lao\n    43,100\n  \n  \n    32\n    Ch'iang\n    35,600\n  \n  \n    33\n    Pu-lang (Palaung)\n    35,000\n  \n  \n    34\n    Sa-la (Salar)\n    30,600\n  \n  \n    35\n    Ngo-lo-ssu (Russian)\n    22,600\n  \n  \n    36\n    K'e-lao\n    20,800\n  \n  \n    37\n    Hsi-po (Sipo)\n    19,000\n  \n  \n    38\n    Mao-nan\n    18,400\n  \n  \n    39\n    A-chang\n    17,700\n  \n  \n    40\n    T'a-chi-k'e (Tadjik)\n    14,400\n  \n  \n    41\n    Wu-tzu-pieh-k'e (Uzbek)\n    13,600\n  \n  \n    42\n    Nu\n    12,700\n  \n  \n    43\n    T'a-t'a-erh (Tatar)\n    6,900\n  \n  \n    44\n    O-wen-k'e (Evenki)\n    6,200\n  \n  \n    45\n    Pao-an\n    4,900\n  \n  \n    46\n    Yü-ku (Sara Uighur)\n    3,800\n  \n  \n    47\n    Peng-lung\n    2,900\n  \n  \n    48\n    Tu-lung\n    2,400\n  \n  \n    49\n    O-lun-ch'un (Orochun)\n    2,200\n  \n  \n    50\n    Ho-che (Nanai)\n    450\n  \n\n* Found by Fang Jen in 1955 to be 300,000, but Bruk listed 49,000.\n\n† From April 19, 1957 issue of Kuang-ming Daily News.\n\n† An estimate.\n\n§ Collectively including the So-lun (4,900), T'ung-ku-ssu (Tungus: 1,205), and Ya-k'u-te (Yakut; 137).",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1962.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9s166f47f",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205100,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 56,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "SINO-WESTERN CONTACTS\n\n51\n\nsurviving specimen of a Middle Mongolian literary text, and an invaluable source on the customs and mores of the Mongols in their early formative period, has a lot to tell about the feuds and struggles of steppe tribes. But it remains singularly uninformative about the countries outside Mongolia. The campaigns against Russia, for example, are mentioned only in the most laconic terms. It is said in No. 274 \"they destroyed the towns of Ejil, Jayah and Meget\". Of these three only Meget, modern Mzcheti near Tiflis, is a town, whereas Ejil and Jayah are names of rivers—the Volga and the Ural respectively. And later similar confusion reigns between names of tribes and towns—the text mentions the \"population of towns like Asut, Sesut, Bolar and Man-Kerman Kiwa\". Asut are the As, the Ossetes; Sesut are probably the Saqsin; Bolar the Volga Bulgars; and Man-Kerman Kiwa means in Turkish the \"great town Kiwa\" which might refer to Sugdaq near Kaffa in the Crimea raided by the Mongols in 1223. All this shows a grandiose unconcern over countries that, after all, had become parts of the Mongol empire.\n\nThe situation is not very different if we turn to the Chinese sources. The dynastic history of the Yuan, Yuan-shih, compiled in 1368-1369 from existing records does not contain much on those parts of Asia that, at some time under Kublai Khan, had belonged to him who was also emperor of China. The compilers and historiographers whose work finally resulted in the Yuan-shih as we have it were mostly Chinese, and their attitude in writing a dynastic history was as a matter of course centered on China. It is perhaps significant that in the section reserved for foreign states in the Yuan-shih we find only entries of those countries which had always had ambassadorial contacts and so-called \"tribute\" relations with China, countries like North and South Korea, Japan, Annam, Burma and Champa. These were immediate neighbors of China. No special chapters were written on other Western states, even if they were dominated by Mongols—countries such as Persia or the Golden Horde or the Chagatai dominion of Central Asia. If they sent embassies or notifications the records must be looked for in the annalistic section (pen-chi). There are, it is true, a few data on Western Asia and even Russia scattered through the Yuan-shih, but they are extremely scanty. There is an appendix on the Western Regions to the section of political geography (YS ch. 63) where the kingdom of Uzbeg.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205106,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 62,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "SINO-WESTERN CONTACTS\n\n57\n\nwith Chinese technique and art forms. This stone is so far the \"sole material monument\" of the Franciscan mission in medieval China. It has been suggested that there might exist another one. Christian tombstones from Ch'üan-chou were published some years ago, and it has been thought that the language on one of them is Latin. It must be Christian because the inscription begins with the sign of the Cross, but the attempt to read it as Latin and to regard it as the tomb inscription for Andrew of Perugia, the third suffragan bishop of Zayton — modern Ch'üan-chou — does not seem convincing. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the inscription is not in Syriac script.5\n\nThere is, however, another mission from the West that reached China and where even the dynastic history of the Yuan has recorded their arrival. It is that of the papal envoy Giovanni da Marignolli, Bishop of Bisignano. A medieval manuscript in Prague has recorded the Western part of the story. This embassy, if we may call it that, was occasioned by a letter from some Alan Christians in China dated 11th July 1336. Some of the senders can be identified with persons mentioned in Chinese sources of the period. The Pope, Benedict XII, answered with a letter dated 13th June 1338, and Giovanni da Marignolli left Avignon — the papal see in those years — in December 1338. He travelled first to Constantinople and proceeded from there to the Crimea and the court of Uzbeg, Khan of the Golden Horde. Another station was Almaliq in Central Asia. Finally the papal envoy reached Khanbaliq (Peking) and was presented to the Emperor, Shun-ti. Giovanni presented the emperor with gifts, among them a Western horse. After a few years in China the envoy went back to Europe via India and reached Avignon in 1353. The Chinese annals have recorded the exact date of the audience when Giovanni met Shun-ti, or, to call him by his Mongol name, Togon Temur; it was August 19, 1342. The Chinese dynastic history calls the country Fu-lang, another way of transcribing the name of the Franks, that is, the Europeans. However, Giovanni's name and that of the Pope, are not mentioned by the Yuan-shih. In any case, this embassy seemed so important to the compilers of the dynastic history that they recorded it, and this means something because the basic documents for Togon Temur's reign were already lost at the time of the compilation of the Yuan-shih so that the annals for his reign are notoriously incomplete. But even so it does not seem",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    }
]