YtfK 94 (100-87)

I;EK 63.3(0)
Pi!lC

PeMendoectHO k nenamu petue,ueM y^e,oeo coeema

Unarma eocmoKoeede,uM UMe,u RE. Cyji euMenoea

Ceem.ou naMnmu

KjpuR AjieKceeeima 3yeea

noceuiaemcsi

KyjibTypHo-HcropimecKke upeCCbi b Uempa.ibn0A3HH

K 90 UpeBHocTb h cpe^HeseKOBbe). In memoriam Yi:d Zuev. - AjiMatw: TOO :-npecc, 2012. - 324 c. + 2 cTp. bkji.
ISBN 978h60 1-290-04_I
CoopHMK CTare:In memonam Yuri Zuev..JlbTypHO
CTopHHecKHe npoueccbi b IJeHTpajifeHoii A3hh (npeBHocrbcpeflneneKOBbe)) nocavafiH naMHTH JOpiia AjieKceeBHqa 3yeBa - TaJiaHTJIHBOFO Ka3aXCTaHCDrO yqeHOFO HCTOpHH TIOpKCKHX HapO^OB,
3BecTHoro BOCTOKOBe^a, cHHOJiora, nopKOJiora, nc roMHHKOBe.ua, bc

3KH3Hb KOTOpOFO OKUia I10CBleHa juyqeHHio hctophh Ka3axcTaHa h

IJeHTpaJibHoA3nh b apeocth h cpe^HeBeKOe.
CoopHnawflTH ocBemaeT amyajibHbie uonpocti -nopKOJio

h, zipeBHeH Cpe^HCBeKOBOH HCTOpH U,eHTpanbHOH A31ocoboe mccto 3aHMaiOT HCCJieflOBaHHJI KHTaCKHX, ApeBHeTK)PKCKHX,
apaocKHX h nepcCKHX HCTOHHHKOB, a Tat:)Ke aHOJIH3 COCT0H
HCTopHOipaqiHH no npooneMaM HcropHH h Kyjibiypbi LJeHTpajitHofi
UFJTTP

y#K 94 (100-87)
BEK 63.3(0)

HhctBOCTOK08CfleH HH
hm. P.E. CyjieMeHOBa, 2012

TOO <ftK-npecc,
ISBN 978-60 1-290-049- 1

04opMJiem, 2012

Hayashi Toshio
AGRICULTURE AND FORTIFICATION
OF THE XIANBEI AND THE ROURAN

The Xianbei invaded China in the 41 years between AD 97 and 187.

For what reason did they inave China? Generally speaking, people imagilae that the nomads maid a raid for pillage of such a treasure as silk and
gold. However, their aim of plundering was solely to obtain people and
livestock0m the Chineseontier regions, as far as we can ascertain

l. Introduction

from Chinese literary sources [Mori 1 997: 1 03; Hayashi 1 984; 53; Hayashi

It is well-known th,at the productivity of pastoral nomadism is much

1 990: 38]. The aims of plunder of the Xianbei and the Rouran arejust the
same; cf. the following cases.

lower than that of modern stock-breeding and nomadic products are unstable. Consequently, the reliance on other economic activities (agriculture,
trade, plunder) is a prerequisite for the development of nomadic empires.
Active agriculture and trade lad to sedentary phenomma: the appearance
of sttlements and trade bases. Thus we have to investigate the develop-

ment of agriculture and trade, and the progress of sedentary settlements in

order to trace the historical development of nomadic empires.
I have studied the case of the Xiongnu and concluded the following points:
1 ) The Xiongnu plundered livestock and took people away from China.
2)People from China were engaged in agriculture and handicraRs under the rule of the Xiongnu.

In 122, the Xianbei killed and took away people [HHS90: 2988; cf.
Mullie 1969: 29.
In 145, the Xianbei killed and took away people and omrials [HHJ20.
In 166, the Xianbei killed and took away officials and people [HHS
90: 2989; cf. Mullie 1969: 32].
In 168, the Xianbei killed and took away oicials and people HHj
23, whose number was uncountable [HHS 90; 2990; cf. Mullie 1 969: 33.
But the Chinese were entering the Xtanbei territory for another reason.
The turbulent situation at the end of the Eastern Han dynasty promoted the
influx of Chinese refugees into the Xianbei territory.

the Xiongnu garrisons were stationed as a defetis strategy again!t attacks

In 177, the prominent counciler, Cai Yong, expressed his view to

the empsror], Ar the Xiongnud, the Xianbei, who took over the

om northern neighbors, Dingling [Hayashi 1984].

former territories of the Xiongnu, grew in strength. They have 100,000

3)Most of their settlements were located in Northern Mongolia, where

This paper deals with the same subject in the Xianbei and the Rouran.

warriors, whose physical strength and wits are increasing more and more.
Furthermore, as a result of lack of discipline at the guard-posts on the
hne of fortications, there are many ways of evading the embargo, which

2.The Case of the Xtanbei

Unfortunately, written sources and archaeological materials about agriculture and settlement of the Xianbei have not been found except several
vague ones. However, it is knownhat many Chinese were entering the

the bandits i.e. the Xianbei used to obtain fine metal and iron of good
quality. The guilty Chinese fie and become the main counselors of the

Xianbei. They surpass the [forr-ner] Xiongnu in the sharpness of weapons

and in the speed of horses. ,, HHS 90: 2991; cf. Mullie 1969: 36;
Kyzlasov 1996: 3 1 8 tThe leader], Kebineng was ofa small Xianbei tribe

Xianbei territory.

origin. He was courageous and robust, judged fairly, and had coveted no
Mongolian archaeologist, Kh. Perlee said,ARer (hat [after the Xiongnu,

many tribes who controlled Mongolia had built neither city nor settlement. Therefore, we can find a remarkable break of the development of city and settlement.
Thus, any written souces or archaeological materials about constructions or settlements during AD l1 and 5th centuries have not yet been found.[Perlee 1 957:43]
However, I have found a few evidences of settlement and fortification iln written

riches. Consequently, people elevated him to the rank of leader. [The territoiy of] his tribe was close to th< [Chinese] frontier. Since Yuan Shao [one
of major warlords] occupied the no-th of the Yellow Rivr ca, AD 1901,

the Chinese revolted [from Yuan Shaoj andjoined to [Kebineng] in a great

number. They instructed [the Xianbei] in fabricating arms, armours and

sources even in this period, as I will discuss 1:T.

158

159

shields. And they taught [Chinese] ideographs very much [SGZ 30: 838;
cf. Mullie 1969: 48].
The Great Wall's role was laot only the prevention against nomads* m-

of Western Region [Eastern Turkestan]in the Honshu says,In the states

vasion but also the prevention offlight of the Chinese. However, at the end

of the Xiongnu and the Wusun. [HS 96-a] So we should understand the

of the Western Region people are settling down in general, having walled
cities, and engaging in tian-chu. Their way of life is different from that

of the Eastern Han dynasty, the Chinese watch system got loose, and a lot

sentence in question thatagriculture, stock-breeding and hunting could

of the Chineseedom the northern China in disorder into the northern

no longer satisfy their needs for food.

Except this, aforementioned passage suggest the interesting con-

rising country.
The rapid increase of population brought a shortage of provisions

ception ofa leader of the nomadic state. That is toay, Tanshihuai con-

among the Xianbei society, Thwerful leader, Tanshihuai [ca. r. 1 5 1/3 -

ceived a plan to take away a large number of peope who were skilled

1 8 1/2], introduced a fishery in addition to the existing productions,tia

in fishing in c)rder to engage them in fishir. Considering that he had

chu she-lie.)>.) In 178The number of the Xianbei increased every day,

such an idea, it is quite natural that he conceived a plan to take away a

and tian-chu she-ie could not longer satisfy their needs for food. There-

large number of people who were skilled in agriculture in order to en-

fore [After that SGZ], Tanshihuai rode out for inspection and saw the
river Wuhouqin {probably present Laoha, or Shira Mtiren]. The river did

gage them in agriculture. And the Chinese whoed or were taken away

notow and the water stayed for several hundred // in length- In the river

the Xianbei territory.

there were large number of fibut the Xianbei could not catch them.
when he heard that the people ofWo3 [Wu or Han ----- SGZ were skilled
in catchingh with nets, he attacked the state of the Wo people on the

been undeveloped, because their state had been unstable and short-lived,

east, captured over 1,000 families and resettled them on the banks of the
river Wuhouqin, ordeg them to catch fish in order to make up the ituIfficiency of food HHS 90: 2994; SGZ 30, Wang Chen's Weishw. 838; cf.
Mutlie 1969: 40, 45; Kyzlasov 1996: 319].

might have been engaged in agriculture and inhabited settlements in

However, in any case, the agriculture in the Xianbei society must have
And the settlements under their control have not yet been known.
3.The case of the Rouran
A:r Kebmeng was assassinated, the Xianbei collsed. At the end
of the 4th century, the Rouran reunited the Mongolian plateau. They also

stockorto breed,) and she-lie means <[hunting by shooting. Conse-

frequently invaded the northern frontier of China and took away people
and livestock.

auently, tian-chu she-lie can be interpreted asagricuhure, stock-breeding

In the eighth month of428, Datan [the 3rd qaghan3 0f the Rouran]

The Word tto meansfarmland:)I orto cultivate,)) chu means:<hve-

and

hunting

the

majority

ing,

[MulKe

of

[Bichurin

969:

researchers

1950I,

40,

have

158;

45;

Kominami

interpreted

Kawachi

et

et

al

tian-chu

a1

1971:

1993437]

as

However,

dispatched his son with over ten thousand horsemen to cross the Great

just:<stock-breed-

198,

206;

Mori

1974:

143; Taskin 1980: 86; Funaki 1989: 85; Kyzlasov 1996: 319].
The compound wordtian-c,can be seen approximately 1 0 times

It has been hitherto thought that the leaders of the Rouran used firstly the
title of qaghan. However, in 1 980 the important inscription written in Chinese
was found in the cave Gaxian in the northeastern Great Xingan Mountains. This

in the Shiji, Honshu and Houhanshu. In every passage, this word canbe in-

inscription which was dedicated to the founder by the emperor Taiwu [Tuoba

terpreted asricultur and stock-breeding.)) For example, theAccounI

Tao] of the Northern Wei in 443 includes the phrases,kekan, the Fou.nder of the
Empire,, and *ke, the Mother Founder of the Empire.Consequently, the first
leaders of the Tuoba tribe of the Xianbei in the 3

The people of Wo are identified in general with

the ancient Japanes'. But it

is very questionable whether the Wo in this context were the Japanese.

160

- 41h centuries might have used

the titles ofkehan-qaghan and kedu,-qadun before the emperor Daowu [Tuoba

Gui] called lhimself dl [emperor in Chinese] in 396.

161

Wall. The cavalry killed and captured people of the>ntier region, and
ran away [WS IQ3: 2294].
In the fourth month of 523, Anagui 'the 1 1" and the last qaghan]
took away 2,000 people and several hundred thousand head ofocial and
private post horses, cattle and sheep, and retreated to the north [WS 1 03:
2302; cf. Jagchid, Symons 1989: 38].
After the Rouran's invasion in 428, there was a heated debate in the

[rouran] already lived a settled life and practiced agriculture)) [Kyzlasov

1996: 322]. And Uchida guesses that the Rouran themselves might have
practiced agriculture, because there was a tradition of agriculture in mongohaom older times, for example, the Wuhuan [Wuwan] who inhabited
southern Manchuria produced millet-like crops [sGZ 30, Wang Chen's
Wehu: 832; Uchida 1975: 28, 297].

However, the Wan inhabited southern Mongolia but not Mongolia,

Northern Wei court concerning attaeking the Rouran. While most ofcourt-

and it is problematical that they were pastoral nomads. And the Chinese

lers opposed the attack, pnly Cm Hao, the intellectual chancellor, insisted

reIgccs and captives were engaged in agriculture in the Xiongnu period

on the advantages of attack and occupation of the Rouran's territory. He

said as follows:In the north of the desert [Gobi] the altitude of the land

is increasing, the climate is cool, there is neither mosquito nor gaday, and

[Hayashi 1984; 2004: 20-123]. Consequently, it is quite natural that the

Chinese were e:ged in agriculture also under the Rouran rule.6 As cited
before, in the fourth month of 523, the Rouran took away 2,000 people to

water and grass areood and fine. In summer the inhabitants move to the

the north. These people must have been employed for cultivating and sow-

norCultivating the land and raising livestock, it is not impossible to

provide provisions* [WS 35: 816; cf. Kollautz, Miyakawa 1970: 1, 62].
This utterance, of course, suggests just a possibility of agriculture in
Mongolia but does not mean that there existed agriculture in fact at that

ing seeds which Anagui got at the end of the preceding year.

time. Ar all, the expedition was dispatched to the north and resulted

tress Mumowas probably constructed by the Chinese who lived in the

in success. However, unfortunately, the Chinese chronicle does not tell

whether Cui's plan to cultivate in the northern land was realized or not.

In the last years of the Rouran period we cand the accounts of fortification and agriculture.
During the Tianjim era [502-5 1 9], the Rouran firstly defeated the Din

gling and recovered their old territory.4 They for thet time built the
fortress named Mumo [LS 54: 817; cf. Kollautz, Miyakawa 1970: 1, 68].
In the twelmonth of 522, AaguHequstcd seeds5 for farming. By
Imperial order ten thousand dan [ 1 da, - 60 litres in the 6- 1 - 7th centuries]

Anagui adopted a government organization in the style of China and

gave a responsible post to an official of Chinese origin. Thus there lived a
lot of Chinese among the Rowan territory. As lwatold before, the forRouran state.[Iwasa 1936: 235]

And it is interesting that the fortress was built against the Dingiing.
Also the Xiongnu constructed the fortresses on the northern border lands
against the Dingling in the 2nd century BC -AD lst century. One of them
must have been the Ivolga gorodishche [settlement with defenses in Russtan archaeological terminology] near the city UlanUde in Buryatia.

Many of the findingsm the site show the very close relations with
the Han China's culture: hard-baked pottery jar like Han's huitao [gray
pottery], whetstone with carved Chinese ideographs and so on. So the

of[seed grain were given to him [WS 103: 2302; cf. Jagchid, Symons
1989: 38; Kyzlasov 1996: 322.
Who were engaged in fortress construction and agriculture? Based on

excavator,

these accounts, L. R. Kyzlasovjudges thatby then some of the Juan-juan

However, after that he proposed two possibilities: the first is the>rmer view that

A.

V.

Davydova,

said,the

construction

of

such

settlements

is

Jagchid considered those seeds as - not for sowing [Jagchid 1 972: 63].
the RouraiIanned to eat the seed grain, and the second is tha t the Chinese who

4 According to the WSt the Rouran defeated the Gaoche [Dingling] in 516
[$ 103: 2297].
L. R. Kyzlasov interpreted Jm asmillet, but originally su meansgrain in

generaU [Kyzlasov 1996: 322]

162

fled the chaotic conditions in China would grow crops for their nomadic lords
[Jagchid, Symons 1 989: 1951 I, of course, agree with the second view. Zhou Weizhou also considers that the captured Chinese slaves were engaged in agnculture
in the Rouran territo- [Zhou 1983: 150.
163

attributable only to the Chineseand confirmedthe existence of Chinese

settlements in the land of the Hsiung-nu [Xiongnu].[Davydova 1956:

300] I agree with this view.

However,

her

later

report,

I basically agree with her first view. And I also agree with her view
that the Xiongnu garrisons were stationed in the fortified settement with

the Chinese farmers and eramen as a precaution against invasions from

she

wrote,

<the

population

of

the

perma-

nent settlements of the Hiung-nu [Xiongnu] was mixed, it was composed

of settled Hiung-nu, of the aboriginal population conquered by the Hiungnu, and of alien craftsmen from the ranks of deserters and prisoners of
war. [And the reason for] the settling down of certain groups of nomads
were connected with one of the phases of dissolution of the clan system
with the Hiung-nu. The increasing differences in the property states led to
the ruination of certain nomads who lost their herds. But this process was
obviously combined also with the strife of society to create permanent
settlements with agriculture and craftsmen's economy.[Davydova 1 968:

24242
That is to say, she considered the Chinese only as alien craftsmen.):) In
her report of 1968 she quoted nothing from her report of 1 956, and did not
state why she had changed her former view which I approve.
In the Soviet academic world there was a common view that the poorest and ruined stratum of nomads was therst to become settled down in
nomadic society. A. V. Davydova would have applied this view to the case
of the lvolga gorodishche."
I suppose that there would be another reason of changing her former
view. That is the Sino-Soviet antagonism which burnt up during 1960's.

their northern neighbours, the Dingling [Davydova 1956: 299; Hayashi

1984: 69]. And the Rouran also constructed a fortress against the Dinglmg."
4. Concluding Remarks
The written sources about agriculture and fortification of the Xianbei
and the Rouran are less than those of the Xiongnu. The archaeological

material is nothing at all. This fact probably re:cts that agriculture, fortification and settlement were not so developed during the time in question.
However, even scarce sources show that a lot of the Chinese refugees
and captives lived in the territory of the Xianbei and the Rouran. According to the written sources, they were the officials and the technical experts,
but there must have been much more common people. They must have

been engaged in agriculture and handicraIike nder the Xiongnu rule.

Concerning their fortification, we can find only one example of the

fortress Mumo in the last stage of the Rouran. But this one fortress was
constructed against te Dingling like those of the Xiongnu. The nomadic
states in Mongolia constructed fortification against the northern minor nomads but did not build them against the major empire, China.

Even if in ancient times, it would be unapproved that a Chinese fortified

Bibliogrhy

settlement within the Soviet territory.8 She has not changed this latter view
in her latest monograph, although she has paid attention to the role of the
Chinese in the Xiongnu society [Davydova 1995: 60-611.

Akishev,

K.

A.

1970:<O

vozniknovenii

osedlosti

zemledeliya

drevnikh

usunei Semirech'ya-,, ln: Po sledamzvnikh kul 'tur Kazakhstana. Alma-Ata,

pp.69-78.

7 Even in the Soviet period, K. A, Akishev keenly cntici;ed this popular view

Bichurin, N. Ya. 1 950 Sobranie svedenu o nu<khr obitavshikh v Srednei

Azii v drevnie vrmena. Moskva-Leningrad. Firstly published in Sankt-Peters-

tAkishev 1 970:77].

burg, 1851]

N. Di Cosmo introduced my interpretation in his paper of 1994, but in his

monograph of 2002 he remained to cite only A. V. Davydova s 1968 view [Di

Cosmo 1994: 1115; 2002: 251]. On the other hand, when I visited Buryatia in

Davydova, A. V. 1956 Ivolginskoe gorodishche: K voprosu o gunnskikh

poselemyakh v Zbaikal'e. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya XXV: 261 -300.

1997, Buryatian archaeologists con:rmed that 1 had guessed right. And when I
expressed my interpretation in the conference at Almaty in 2003 [Hayashi 2004],
a participant, A, M. Khazanov whispered to me,You are nght.)

164

9 Zhou also considered that the fortress Mumo was constructed for the defense against the Gaoche [Zhou 1 983: 149].
165

Davydova, A. V. 1968The Ivolga Gorodishche: A Monument of the Hiung-

nu Culture in the Trans-Baikal Regions Ada Archaeologica Academiae Scienttarum Hungaricae XX: 209-245.
Davydova, A. V. 1 995 Ivolginskii arkheologicheskii kompleks, I: Ivolginskoe
gorodishche. Sankt-Petersburg : FondAziatIKA.

LS [LiangshuJ. Yao Sihan, compiled. Beijing: The Zhonghua Publishing

House, 1973.
Mori, M. 1 974Nairiku-Ajia Yuubokumin no Sekai.[in Japanese] In: Cku-

ugoku Bunmei to Nairiku-Ajia [Jinrui Bunkashi, 4], Tokyo: Kodansha.

Mori, M. 1997Kodai Higashi-Ajia niokeru Yuuboku Kokka to Noukou

Di Cosmo, N, 1994:<The Economic Basis of the Ancient Inner Asian No-

Kokka.), in Japanese] In: Mori, M, Kodai Toruko Minzokushi Kenkyuu, III: 89-

mads and its Relationship to China.,, Journal of the Asian Studies 53(4): 10921126.

1 1 5. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha. Firstly published in Rekishigaku Kenkyuu

147, 1950

Di Cosmo, N. 2002 Ancient China and its E,emies: The Rise of Nomadic
Power in East Asian History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Funaki, K. 1989 Kodai Kiba Yubokumin o Kirni [in Japanese], Tokyo:

Seibundou Shinkousha.
Hayashi, T. 1984Agriculture and Settlements in the Hsiung-nu.'>> Bulletin

ofthe Ancient Orient Museum VI: 5 1-92.

Mulhe, J. L. M. 1969Les Sien-pi.)) CentralAsiatic Journal XIII/1 : 24-5 1.

Perlee, Kh. 1957K istorii drevnikh gorodov i poselenii v Mongolii)) Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3: 43-53.
SGZ [SanguozhiJ. Chen Shou, compiled. Beijing; The Zhonghua Publishing
House, 1959.
Taskin, V. S. 1980Materialy po istorii ukhuanei i syan'bi.In: Dal'nii Vo-

Hayashi, T. 1990 The Development of a Nomadic Empire: The Case of

Ancient Turks (Tuque).) Bulleti oftheAncient Orient Museum XI: 135-1 84.
Hayashi, T. 2004The Role of Sedentary People in the Nomadic States:
From the Xiongnu Empire to the Uigur Qaghanate. In: Urban ad Nomadic

Societies in Ce,tral Asia: Hisry and Challenges. Proceedings of lnternational

stok i sosednie territorii v srednie veka. Novosibirsk.

Uchida, G. 1975 Kita-Ajiaski Ke,uu: Senpi, Juuzen, Tokketsu Hen [in Japanese], Kyoto: Douboush;a.
WS [WeishuJ. Wei Shou, compiled. Beijing; The Zhonghua Publishing House,1974.

Zhou, W. 1983 Chileyu Rouran, Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe.

Confere,ce. Almaty:D,ikPress, pp. 1 1 7-1 34.

HHJ [Houhanji]. Yuan Hong, compi led.

HHS [HouhaSFan Ye, compiled. Beijing: The Zhonghua Publishing
House, 1965,
HS fHaskuj. B,n Gu, dompiled. Beijing: The Zhonghua Publishing House,

1962.

IWASA, S.
HS [Honshu]. 1936 Iw,a Seiichirou lko, 'in Japanese]. Tokyo.
Jagchid, S. 1 972 Bei-Ya ya

mu minzu y Zhongyuan ongye minzujian di

heping zhanzhengyu maoyi zhi gua;in Chinese]. Taipei Zhengzhong shuju.

Jagchid, S & Symons, V. J. 1989 Peace, Wa-d Trade along the Great

Wall. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kawachi, Y. et al. 1971 Kiba Minzokushi, 1; Seishi Hokutekiden [in Japanew]. Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Kollautz, A. & Miyakawa, H. 1 970 Geschichte und Kultur eines volkerwanderungszeitlichen Nomade*volkes. Klagenfurt: Geschi chtsverein fiir K;rnten.
Koimnami, I. et al. 1 993 Seishi Sangokusi: 4 [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Chikuma
Shobou,
Kyzlasov, L. R. 1996Northern Nomads.) In: B. A. Litvinsky, ed., History
ofCivilizatio,

of

Central

Asia,

III3

15-325.

66

Paris:

UNESCO

Publishing.

167

Haywioeuaoanue
lnmemoriamYuriZuev
Kyjibxypuo-HCTopKecKiienpoueccw
bUeHTpajibH0AjHH
(dpesHOCTbhcpe/iHeeeKOBbe).

CocTaHT&UH:B.K.Ulyxoeifoe,KVTopnanoaeea
PeueH3eHTA.K.KaMcuioe
PeflaKTop3.T.PaxuxtBaeBa
KoppeKTOp3.PaxuM6aeea
KoMm>K>TepHaflpCTKB,H3aHE.A.HeMltpOBCK0
noAnmcaHObneqarb25.12.12.
opiuaT60x84l
byinaraotpcerHaB.FleMaTbo

ceTHaa.

Yn.-U3fl.A.20,25.
ycneq.a.18,78.
Twpatoo3K3.
H3AaTeAbCTBO"AaK-npecc,
050009,r.AjiMa-rM,
yji.A6aa,143,0hc302
Teji./Saiec:394-40-45,394-42-32
:-maildaikpress@mail.i,lena
ru,lenanemiy^mau.ru
JnpeKTopB.A.KaryAOB

m^^^KSaJili-.-..---,111 '^J=u-

OTBeTCBeHHUHpeaaierop:MX,Adyceumoea