The Six Zhao of Yunnan (; Liùzhào; ) were a group of six major tribal polities that emerged in the early 7th century around Erhai Lake in present-day Yunnan, southwestern China. The polities â , , , , , and â were associated with the Wuman () and Baiman () groups described in Chinese historical sources. Among them, , located furthest to the south, later became known as Nanzhao () and rose to prominence as the dominant power in the region.
During the Tang dynasty, the Six Zhao existed within a complex frontier environment shaped by interactions with the Tang court and the Tibetan Empire. While several Zhao polities alternated in their allegiance between these larger powers, maintained closer ties with the Tang and, with imperial support, eventually unified the region. In 738 CE, its ruler Piluoge annexed the other Zhao polities and established the Nanzhao Kingdom, marking the transition from a cluster of tribal confederations to a more centralized political entity.
The Six Zhao has been subject to considerable scholarly debate. Earlier studies often linked them to proto-Tai or early Southeast Asian polities, but more recent scholarship emphasizes the limited and external nature of the historical sources. The Six Zhao are now more commonly understood as part of a multi-ethnic highland frontier, whose political organization was fluid and shaped by shifting regional dynamics rather than by stable ethnic identities.
During the Tang dynasty, the area of the West was inhabited by the Wuman people (), who were organized into six large tribal confederations collectively known as the âÂÂSix Zhao.â These comprised , , , , , and . Among them, Mengshe Zhao, located in the southernmost area, was consequently known as Nanzhao and was the most powerful of the six; its ruling lineage bore the surname Meng (). The term zhao () is understood to denote a chieftain or tribal ruler.ãÂÂ
In 649 CE, , the leader of , proclaimed the establishment of the state of Great Meng (; later as Nanzhao) and assumed the title of Qijia King (). Despite this claim, the polity remained, in essence, a tribal entity rather than a fully developed state. An alternative tradition holds that , ruler of the Bai kingdom of at Baiya () to the northeast of Nanzhao, abdicated in favor of his son-in-law , who had taken refuge there. subsequently dispatched his son to the Tang court to seek imperial protection.
Beginning in the third year of the Yifeng era (678 CE) under Emperor Gaozong of Tang, the Tibetan Empire successively conquered five of the Zhao polities, while alone consistently maintained allegiance to the Tang. In the first year of the Kaiyuan era (713 CE), Emperor Xuanzong of Tang conferred upon Piluoge of Nanzhao the title âÂÂPrince of Taidengâ () and bestowed upon him the honorific name Guiyi (; ). In February 729 CE, Tang forces defeated the Tibetans and captured the Kunming salt resources. At this time, , , , and the He Man (æ²³è®) groups aligned themselves with the Tibetan Empire, whereas , , and (Nanzhao) submitted to the Tang dynasty.
The Six Zhao are believed to have originated from the Cuan people. Following the division of the Cuans into two branches, the Six Zhao developed from the Western Cuan (), also referred to as the Baiman (). The six Zhao polities were located as follows:
Because lay to the south of the other polities, it became known as Nanzhao (). In the 26th year of the Kaiyuan era (738 CE), its leader Piluoge, with the support of the Tang court, annexed the remaining five Zhao polities and was elevated to the rank of King of Yunnan. Establishing his power base in the West region, he founded the Nanzhao Kingdom. In the following year, the capital was relocated to , which is now the Taihe village in the in Dali City.
The historical interpretation of the Six Zhao has been shaped by both the limitations of early Chinese sources and later historiographical constructions. Contemporary records from the Tang period, such as the Man Shu, describe the polities primarily in ethnographic and administrative terms, often classifying them within broader categories such as the Wumán people () and Baiman (). These classifications, however, reflected external perspectives of the Tang court and do not necessarily correspond to coherent ethnic or political identities on the ground.
Earlier scholarship, particularly from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, tended to interpret the Six ZhaoâÂÂespecially (Nanzhao)âÂÂas early representatives of Tai or proto-Tai polities. This view was often linked to broader attempts to trace the origins of Tai-speaking peoples in mainland Southeast Asia back to Yunnan. However, modern research has increasingly questioned such interpretations. Scholars have pointed out that the available evidence for linguistic or ethnic continuity between the Six Zhao and later Tai groups is extremely limited, and that many of these earlier claims relied on speculative associations and retrospective readings of historical sources.
More recent studies emphasize that the Six Zhao should be understood as part of a complex, multi-ethnic highland environment in southwestern China, shaped by interactions among various groups, including those later categorized as Tibeto-Burman and other non-Tai populations. Rather than representing clearly defined âÂÂethnic states,â the Zhao polities are better interpreted as flexible tribal confederations whose identities and political structures were fluid. Their eventual consolidation under Nanzhao is thus seen less as the rise of a unified ethnic polity and more as the outcome of shifting alliances and geopolitical dynamics between the Tang dynasty and the Tibetan Empire.