A conquest dynasty (Chinese: 征服王朝; pinyin: Zhēngfú Wángcháo) in the history of China refers to a Chinese dynasty established by non-Han ethnicities for which ruled parts or all of China proper, the traditional heartland of the Han people, and whose rulers may or may not fully assimilate into the dominant Han culture.

Concept

The term "conquest dynasty" was coined by the German-American sinologist Karl August Wittfogel in his 1949 revisionist history of the Liao dynasty (916–1125). He argued that the Liao, as well as the Jin (1115–1234), Yuan (1271–1368), and Qing (1636–1912) dynasties of China were not really "Chinese", and that the ruling families did not fully assimilate into the dominant Han culture. The "conquest dynasty" concept was warmly received by mostly Japanese scholars such as Otagi Matsuo, who preferred to view these dynasties in the context of a "history of Asia" rather than a "history of China". Alternative views to the concept of "conquest dynasty" from American sinologists include Owen Lattimore's idea of the steppe as a "reservoir", Wolfram Eberhard's concept of a "superstratification" of Chinese society with nomadic peoples, and Mary C. Wright's thesis of sinicization. Among historians, the labelling of "conquest dynasties" has proven to be controversial, especially when using such characterization on dynasties such as the Jin.[1]

Scope of China (Zhongguo)

In the English language, "Zhongguo ren" (中國人; "People of China") is frequently confused and conflated with "Han ren" (漢人; "Han people").[2]

Dynasties of ethnic Han origin only used "Zhongguo" (中國; "Middle Kingdom") to explicitly refer to Han areas of their empire.[3] The Ming dynasty used Zhongguo to refer to only Han areas of the empire, excluding areas populated by ethnic minorities under Ming rule from the definition.[4]

The Xianbei-led Northern Wei referred to itself as "Zhongguo" and claimed yogurt as a food of Zhongguo.[5] Similarly, the Jurchen-led Jin dynasty referred to itself as "Zhongguo".[6]

In 1271, Kublai Khan proclaimed the Yuan dynasty with the official name "Great Yuan" (大元) and claimed succession from former Chinese dynasties from the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors up to the Tang dynasty.

Qing emperors referred to all subjects of the Qing dynasty regardless of their ethnicity as "Chinese" (中國之人), and used the term "Zhongguo" as a synonym for the entire Qing Empire while using "neidi" (内地; "inner regions") to refer only to the core area (or China proper) of the empire. The Qing Empire was viewed as a single multi-ethnic entity.[7][8]

The Qing emperors governed frontier non-Han areas in a separate administrative system under the Lifan Yuan. Nonetheless, it was the Qing emperors who expanded the definition of Zhongguo and made it "flexible" by using that term to refer to the entire empire. Zhongguo was also used by the Qing Empire as an endonym in diplomatic correspondence. However, some Han subjects criticized their usage of the term and used Zhongguo only to refer to the seventeen provinces of China and three provinces of the east (Manchuria), excluding other frontier areas.[9] Han literati who remained loyal to the Ming dynasty held to defining the old Ming borders as "China" and used the term "foreigner" to describe ethnic minorities under Qing rule, such as the Mongols, as part of their anti-Qing ideology.[10] As the territorial borders of the Qing Empire were fixed through a series of treaties with neighboring foreign powers, it was able to inculcate in the Qing subjects a sense that China included areas such as Mongolia and Tibet due to educational reforms. Specifically, the educational reform made it clear where the borders of the Qing Empire were, even if Han subjects did not understand how the Chinese identity included Mongols and Tibetans or understand what the connotations of being "Chinese" were.[11]

In an attempt to portray different ethnicities as part of one family ruled by the Qing dynasty, the phrase "Zhongwai yijia" (中外一家; "interior and exterior as one family") was used to convey the idea of the "unification" of different ethnic groups.[12] After conquering China proper, the Manchus identified their state as "China" (中國; Zhōngguó; "Middle Kingdom"), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in the Manchu language (Dulimbai means "central" or "middle", while gurun means "nation" or "state"). The emperors labelled the lands of the Qing Empire (including present-day Northeast China, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet, and other areas) as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages. This effectively defined China as a multi-ethnic state, thereby rejecting the idea that "China" only meant Han-populated areas. The Qing emperors proclaimed that both Han and non-Han ethnic groups were part of "China". They also used both "China" and "Qing" to refer to their state in official documents, international treaties (the Qing Empire was known internationally as "China"[13] or the "Chinese Empire"[14]), and foreign affairs. The "Chinese language" (Dulimbai gurun i bithe) included Chinese, Manchu, Mongol, and Tibetan languages, while the "Chinese people" (中國之人; Zhōngguó zhī rén; Manchu: Dulimbai gurun i niyalma) referred to all subjects of the Qing Empire.[15]

In the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk, the term "China" (Dulimbai Gurun; Zhongguo) was used to refer to the Qing territories in Manchuria in both the Manchu and Chinese language versions of the treaty. Additionally, the term "the wise Emperor of China" was also used in the Manchu version of the treaty.[16]

The Qianlong Emperor rejected the earlier idea that only the Han people could be subjects of China and only Han lands could be considered as part of China. Instead, he redefined China as being multi-ethnic, saying in 1755 that "there exists a view of China (Zhongxia; 中夏), according to which non-Han peoples cannot become China's subjects and their lands cannot be integrated into the territory of China. This does not represent our dynasty's understanding of China, but is instead a view of the earlier Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties."[3] The Qianlong Emperor rejected the views of ethnic Han officials who claimed that Xinjiang was not part of China and that he should not annex it, putting forth the argument that China was multi-ethnic and did not just refer to Han areas.[17]

When the Qing conquered Dzungaria, they proclaimed that the new land which formerly belonged to the Oirat-led Dzungar Khanate was now absorbed into China (Dulimbai Gurun) in a Manchu language memorial.[18][19][20]

The Yongzheng Emperor spoke out against the claim by anti-Qing rebels that the Qing dynasty were only the rulers of the Manchus and not of China, saying "The seditious rebels claim that we are the rulers of Manchus and only later penetrated central China to become its rulers. Their prejudices concerning the division of their and our country have caused many vitriolic falsehoods. What these rebels have not understood is the fact that it is for the Manchus the same as the birthplace is for the people of the Central Plain. Shun belonged to the Eastern Yi, and King Wen to the Western Yi. Does this fact diminish their virtues?" (在逆賊等之意，徒謂本朝以滿洲之君入為中國之主，妄生此疆彼界之私，遂故為訕謗詆譏之說耳，不知本朝之為滿洲，猶中國之有籍貫，舜為東夷之人，文王為西夷之人，曾何損於聖德乎？)[21]

According to Russian scholars S.V. Dmitriev and S.L. Kuzmin, despite the Qing dynasty's usage of the term "China", these empires were known officially by their respective dynastic name. Non-Han peoples considered themselves as subjects of the Yuan and Qing empires and did not necessarily equate them to "China". This resulted from different ways of the Yuan and Qing legitimization for different peoples in these empires.[22][23] Qing emperors were referred to as "Khagan of China" (or "Chinese khagan") by their Turkic Muslim subjects (now known as the Uyghurs),[24] as "Bogda Khan" or "(Manchu) Emperor" by their Mongol subjects, and as "Emperor of China" (or "Chinese Emperor") and "the Great Emperor" (or "Great Emperor Manjushri") by their Tibetan subjects, such as in the 1856 Treaty of Thapathali.[25][26][27] It is pointed out that Tibetan subjects regarded the Qing as Chinese, unlike the Yuan which was founded by Mongols.[28] According to Dmitriev and Kuzmin, the Liao, Jin, Yuan and Qing were multi-national empires led by non-Chinese peoples to whom the conquered China or its part was joined.[29] Nevertheless, American historian Richard J. Smith points out "China proper" (often designated 内地 meaning "inner territory" in Chinese) refers to the core eighteenth provinces of the Qing dynasty, but from a Manchu perspective, however, the concept of “China” (Chinese: Zhongguo; Manchu: Dulimbai Gurun) embraced the entire empire, including Manchuria, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet.[30]

The modern territorial claims of both the People's Republic of China, based in Beijing, and the Republic of China, based in Taipei, are derived from the territories that were held by the Qing dynasty at the time of its demise.[31][32][33] The nationalistic concept of the Zhonghua minzu (Chinese nation) also traces its roots to the multiethnic and multicultural nature of the Qing Empire.

Criticism

Certain traits assigned by past scholars to "conquest dynasties" to distinguish them from "native" dynasties may not have been so distinguishing. An example is the "royal hunt", which, according to David M. Robinson, "originated in China in a complex legacy of venerable Central Plain polities of high antiquity."[34]

List of non-Han dynasties

This list includes only the major dynasties of China ruled by non-Han ethnicities, there were many other such dynastic regimes that ruled an area historically or currently associated with "China" not shown in this list. Also, not all non-Han regimes are seen as conquest dynasties, and many of them are actually considered as "infiltration dynasties".

Ethnicity Conquest dynasty Period of rule Territorial extent
Xianbei
鮮卑		 Tuyuhun
吐谷渾		 284–670 CE Parts of China proper
Former Yan
前燕		 337–370 CE
Later Yan
後燕		 384–409 CE
Western Qin
西秦		 385–400 CE, 409–431 CE
Southern Liang
南涼		 397–414 CE
Southern Yan
南燕		 398–410 CE
Dai
代		 310–376 CE
Duan Qi
段齊		 350–356 CE
Western Yan
西燕		 384–394 CE
Northern Wei
北魏		 386–535 CE
Eastern Wei
東魏		 534–550 CE
Western Wei
西魏		 535–557 CE
Northern Zhou
北周		 557–581 CE
Di
氐		 Chouchi
仇池		 296–371 CE, 385–443 CE
Cheng-Han
成漢		 304–347 CE
Former Qin
前秦		 351–394 CE
Later Liang
後涼		 386–403 CE
Xiongnu
匈奴		 Han-Zhao
漢趙		 304–329 CE
Northern Liang
北涼		 397–439 CE
Hu Xia
胡夏		 407–431 CE
Xu
許		 618–619 CE
Jie
羯		 Later Zhao
後趙		 319–351 CE
Hou Han
侯漢		 551–552 CE
Qiang
羌		 Later Qin
後秦		 384–417 CE
Dingling
丁零		 Zhai Wei
翟魏		 388–392 CE
Sogdian
粟特[35]		 Former Yan
前燕		 756–759 CE
Göktürk
突厥		 Later Yan
後燕		 759–763 CE
Shatuo
沙陀		 Former Jin
前晉		 907–923 CE
Later Tang
後唐		 923–937 CE
Later Jin[36]
後晉		 936–947 CE
Later Han[37]
後漢		 947–951 CE
Northern Han
北漢		 951–979 CE
Khitan
契丹		 Liao dynasty
遼朝		 916–1125 CE
Dongdan
東丹		 926–936 CE
Northern Liao
北遼		 1122–1123 CE
Western Liao
西遼		 1124–1218 CE
Eastern Liao
東遼		 1213–1269 CE
Later Liao
後遼		 1216–1219 CE
Baiman
白蠻		 Dali
大理		 937–1094 CE, 1096–1253 CE
Dazhong
大中		 1094–1096 CE
Tangut
党項		 Western Xia
西夏		 1038–1227 CE
Shun dynasty
順朝		 1644–1646 CE
Jurchen
女真		 Jin dynasty
金朝		 1115–1234 CE
Eastern Xia
東夏		 1215–1233 CE
Later Jin
後金		 1616–1636 CE
Mongol
蒙古		 Yuan dynasty
元朝		 1271–1368 CE All of China proper
Northern Yuan
北元		 1368–1635 CE Parts of China proper
Manchu
滿洲		 Qing dynasty
清朝		 1636–1912 CE All of China proper

See also

References

Citations

  1. ↑ Tao, Jing-shen. The Jurchen in Twelfth-Century China: A Study of Sinicization. University of Washington Press. pp. xi–x.
  2. ↑ Liu 2004, p. 266.
  3. 1 2 Zhao 2006, p. 4.
  4. ↑ Jiang 2011, p. 103.
  5. ↑ Scott Pearce; Audrey G. Spiro; Patricia Buckley Ebrey (2001). Culture and Power in the Reconstitution of the Chinese Realm, 200-600. Harvard Univ Asia Center. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-0-674-00523-5.
  6. ↑ Patricia Buckley Ebrey; Anne Walthall; James B. Palais (2013). East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History, Volume I: To 1800. Cengage Learning. pp. 138–. ISBN 978-1-111-80815-0.
  7. ↑ Elena Barabantseva (2010). "Overseas Chinese, Ethnic Minorities and Nationalism: De-Centering China (2010) (pages 20-22)". New York: Routledge. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-08-16.
  8. ↑ Yuan-kang WANG (May 2013). "Managing Hegemony in East Asia: China's Rise in Historical Perspective" (PDF). Western Michigan University. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-04-10.
  9. ↑ Esherick 2006, p. 232.
  10. ↑ Mosca 2011, p. 94.
  11. ↑ Esherick 2006, p. 251.
  12. ↑ Elliott & Chia (2004), pp. 76–77.
  13. ↑ Treaty of Nanking. 1842.
  14. ↑ McKinley, William. "Second State of the Union Address". 5 Dec. 1898.
  15. ↑ Zhao (2006), pp. n 4, 7–10, and 12–14.
  16. ↑ Zhao (2006), pp. 8 and 12.
  17. ↑ Zhao 2006, pp. 11-12.
  18. ↑ Dunnell 2004, p. 77.
  19. ↑ Dunnell 2004, p. 83.
  20. ↑ Elliott 2001, p. 503.
  21. ↑ Yongzheng Emperor. 大義覺迷錄 [Record of how great righteousness awakens the misguided], 近代中國史料叢刊 [Collection of materials on modern Chinese history] (Taipei: 文海出版社, 1966), vol. 36, 351–2, 1: 2b–3a.
  22. ↑ Dmitriev, S.V. and Kuzmin, S.L. 2012. What is China? The Middle State in historical myth and real policy, Oriens (Moscow), no 3, pp. 5-19.
  23. ↑ Dmitriev, S.V. and Kuzmin, S.L. 2014. Qing Empire as China: anatomy of a historical myth, Oriens (Moscow), no 1, pp. 5-17
  24. ↑ "The Qing Dynasty and Its Central Asian Neighbors". Retrieved September 17, 2023.
  25. ↑ Treaty between Tibet and Nepal, 1856 (translation)
  26. ↑ Bell, Charles (1992). Tibet Past and Present. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 278. ISBN 9788120810679.
  27. ↑ Dunnell, Ruth (2004). New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. Taylor & Francis. p. 124. ISBN 9781134362226.
  28. ↑ Santa Barbara, "A Union of Religion and Politics: The Tibetan Regency of Ngawang Tsültrim", Page 18
  29. ↑ Dmitriev, S.V. and Kuzmin, S.L. 2015. Conquest Dynasties of China or Foreign Empires? The Problem of Relations between China, Yuan and Qing, International J. Central Asian Studies, vol. 19, pp. 59-91.
  30. ↑ Smith, Richard J. (2015). The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Chinese Culture. Lantham, Boulder, New York and London: Rowman and Littlefield. p. 448. ISBN 9781442221925.
  31. ↑ Esherick, Joseph; Kayali, Hasan; Van Young, Eric (2006). Empire to Nation: Historical Perspectives on the Making of the Modern World. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 245. ISBN 9780742578159.
  32. ↑ Zhai, Zhiyong (2017). 憲法何以中國. City University of HK Press. p. 190. ISBN 9789629373214.
  33. ↑ Gao, Quanxi (2016). 政治憲法與未來憲制. City University of HK Press. p. 273. ISBN 9789629372910.
  34. ↑ Roger des Forges, (Review) Journal of Chinese Studies No. 60 – (January 2015) pp. 302-303.
  35. ↑ An Lushan's father was of Sogdian and his mother was of Göktürk origin.
  36. ↑ Wudai Shi ch. 75. 舊五代史/卷75  (in Chinese) – via Wikisource.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Considering the father was originally called Nieliji without a surname, the fact that his patrilineal ancestors all had Chinese names here indicates that these names were probably all created posthumously after Shi Jingtang became a "Chinese" emperor. Shi Jingtang actually claimed to be a descendant of Chinese historical figures Shi Que and Shi Fen, and insisted that his ancestors went westwards towards non-Han Chinese area during the political chaos at the end of the Han dynasty in the early 3rd century.
  37. ↑ According to Old History of the Five Dynasties, vol. 99, and New History of the Five Dynasties, vol. 10. Liu Zhiyuan was of Shatuo origin. According to Wudai Huiyao, vol. 1 Liu Zhiyuan's great-great-grandfather Liu Tuan (劉湍) (titled as Emperor Mingyuan posthumously, granted the temple name of Wenzu) descended from Liu Bing (劉昞), Prince of Huaiyang, a son of Emperor Ming of Han

Sources

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.