The Periodization of Chinese History

A Concise History of China
J.A.G. Roberts, Harvard University Press
To view this book at Amazon.com

Traditional Chinese historiography divided the country’s history into dynastic periods and explained the divisions by reference to a dynastic cycle.  According to that view, dynasties were founded by able and virtuous rulers but their successors failed to maintain the standards that their forefathers had set.  If later rulers did not respond to repeat warnings, which took the form of portents, the mandate of heaven was transferred to the founder of a new dynasty.  Some modern historians, while accepting that the personal qualities of its rulers had some influence on a dynasty’s fortunes, have argued that the dynastic cycle was essentially the product of economic and administrative factors.  When a new dynasty was founded the ruler eliminated his rivals, established an effective government, levied moderate taxes and secured the frontiers. Under later rulers the costs of government rose, powerful families began to evade taxation, and the frontiers became over-extended and the burden of tax borne by the peasants increased. Finally the peasants rose in rebellion and overthrew the dynasty.

Even if the concept of the dynastic cycle has some validity, a repetitive cycle is not a consistent feature in imperial history.  For prolonged periods, for example between 220 and 589, no one dynasty ruled over the whole of China.  At other times the dynasty changed but there was no evidence of a cyclical pattern - the continuity between the Sui and the tang, for example, was very marked.  Some of the most important historical turning points in China’s history have come in the middle of a dynastic period.  Although the rebellion of An Lushan had a devastating effect on the Tang dynasty, the Tang emperors remained on the throne for another 150 years.   On the other hand, the change from one dynasty to another might coincide with a major social transition.  The Japanese historian Naito Torajiro put forward what has become known as the ’Naito hypothesis’.  He argued that modern Chinese history began not with the arrival of Westerners in China, but at the end of the Tang and the beginning of the Song periods.  That point, he claimed marked the end of aristocratic government and the beginning of the period of autocratic rule.

From the above, it will be apparent that the division of Chinese history into dynastic periods is often questioned.  Nevertheless, periodization by dynasties remains the most commonly used chronological framework.  As it is the organizational principle, which is most accessible to the reader, it has been used in a modified form in this book.

top