Download Spring 2006

Spring 2006
Elliott and van der Kuijp, Chinese History 252
Week 3 – 15 February
The idea of the conquest dynasty
Denis F. Twitchett and Herbert Franke, “Introduction,” in Twitchett and Franke, eds., The Cambridge
History of China, vol. 6 (Cambridge, 1996), 1-42.
Karl Wittfogel and Feng Chia-sheng, to History of Chinese Society: Liao (Philadelphia: American
Philosophical Society, 1949), 1-35 (“Introduction”).
Herbert Franke, “The Role of the State as a Structural Element in Polyethnic Societies,” in Stuart Schram,
ed., Foundations and Limits of State Power in China (Hong Kong: CUHK, 1987), 87-112.
Fujieda Akira, “Ryō-Kin-Genshi no kadai,” in Seifuku ōchō (Osaka: Akitaya,1948), pp. 13-29.
Tamura Jitsuzō, “Chūgoku seifuku ōchō ni tsuite,” in Chūgoku seifuku ōchō no kenkyū (Kyoto: Kyoto
University Press, 1971), vol. 2, pp. 623-641.
Sun Jinyi, “Guanyu ‘zhengfu wangchao lun’,” Liao-Jin Qidan-Nüzhenshi yanjiu dongtai 1-14 (1982/83),
pp. 22-23.
Questions from Akira Fujieda, Seifuku ōchō (Osaka, 1948):
1. Japanese scholars at universities who worked on the history of the Liao, Jin, and Yuan were largely
brought into the field by the wars between China and Japan, such as the one between Qing and Japan
(1894-1895) and one that happened in Manchuria (1931). As a result, Japanese scholars contributed to
the war intellectually, resulting in many publications on this field. After the end of World War II, most
organizations of this field of study were closed, and few scholars remained in this field of study. What
would you think about the relationship between universities and the government? Would you think that
those Japanese scholars should be blamed as having contributed to the war?
2. In his article ``我的研究東北史地的計画'' in 禹貢半月刊 (民23年=1934), Feng Chia-sheng (馮家昇) says
that “Before the outbreak of the war [with Japan], Chinese people did not care about the Northeastern
regions of China. After war broke out, Chinese people suddenly rushed to write refutations about the war.
However, that cannot catch them up. The Chinese people should have been preparing for it ordinarily
[before war].'' Why did the Chinese not care about the Northeastern areas of their own country? How
were those areas looked upon by the Chinese people at that time?
3. Fujieda differentiates specialists of Chinese history and specialists of the history of Manchuria and
Mongolia, saying, ``both are standing on the other sides of the river, and there is rarely a bridge between
them. '' What do you think about this remark?
Questions regarding the criticism issued from Tamura on The History of Chinese Society: Liao, by
Wittfogel and Feng:
1. Tamura says, “This book is written from the perspective of the conquest rulers. With this, would it be
really possible to grasp the historical development of the Chinese society?'' What would you think about
his question?
2. Tamura says, “It needs to be investigated what the basic nature shared by all conquest dynasties is.
For example, think about the dilemma: the conquest dynasty consists of both farming and agriculture.
Farming is superior in terms of military. However, to become the conquest dynasty of China causes some
abandonment of this farming system or gives great limitations of this military superiority. With this the
conquest dynasty starts to lose their military superiority, and finally they are conquered by the Chinese
agricultural people.”
3. According to Tamura, the dualism to have the nomadic way of life and the agricultural life did not
necessarily start for the first time when the conquest dynasties started. For example, the Yuan dynasty
had started this dualism in the Northern part of China before they became the conquest dynasty in China.
It is not that all nomads became the conquest dynasties. The other factors are needed for the nomads to
invade China, for example, at the time when there was political unrest within Chinese society. What
elements would you think brought those conquest dynasties in China if there is anything of the inner
factors within China to bring them in?
4. Tamura says, ``in order to clarify the nature of the Conquest dynasties such as Liao, Jin, Yuan, Qing,
one should compare them with Xiongnu, Turks, Uighurs, rather than with the Five Dynasties (五胡) ・ the
Northern Wei (308-581). What do you think?
5. “History of Chinese Society'' proposed the theory of “acculturation'' generated by a symbiotic relation
between the Conquerors and the Chinese. Also, this book emphasizes the similarity between Liao and
Yuan. However, the Liao dynasty consists of the duality of Khitans and Han people, and the Yuan
dynasty consists of the multiplicity including Central Asians and the Western Asians, the Khitans and the
Jurchen. There in the Yuan dynasty, Han people were almost ignored. Therefore, Liao and Yuan should
be differentiated in terms of their symbiotic relation with Chinese people. What would you think about this
remark of his?