Conquest dynasty

{{short description|Dynasties of China ruled by non-Han ethnicities}} {{Short history of China}}

A '''conquest dynasty''' ({{zh |c = 征服王朝 |p = Zhēngfú Wángcháo}}) in the history of China refers to a Chinese dynasty established by non-Han ethnicities which ruled parts or all of China proper, the traditional heartland of the Han people, and whose rulers may or may not have fully assimilated into the dominant Han culture. Four major dynasties have been considered "conquest dynasties": the Liao (916–1125), the Jin (1115–1234), Yuan (1271–1368), and Qing (1644–1912).

==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 (1644–1912) dynasties of China were not really "Chinese", and that the ruling families did not fully assimilate into the dominant Han culture.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Crossley |first=Pamela Kyle |author-link=Pamela Kyle Crossley |date=December 1985 |title=An Introduction to the Qing Foundation Myth |journal=Late Imperial China |language=en |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=13–24 |doi=10.1353/late.1985.0016 |issn=1086-3257}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Jurchen in Twelfth-Century China: A Study of Sinicization|first=Jing-shen|last=Tao|publisher=University of Washington Press|pages=xi–x}}</ref> Meanwhile, not all non-Han regimes were seen as "conquest dynasties" by Karl August Wittfogel: some of these regimes, such as the Northern Wei, he considered to be "infiltration dynasties".<ref>{{Cite book|title = History of Chinese Society-Liao: Transactions, American Philosophical Society (Vol. 36, Part 1)|author = Karl A Wittfogel|publisher = American Philosophical Society|year = 1946|isbn = 9781422377192|page = 24}}</ref>

==Scope of China (''Zhongguo'')== {{See also|Names of China|Names of the Qing dynasty}} In the English language, "''Zhongguo ren''" ({{lang|zh-Hant|中國人}}; "People of China") is frequently confused and conflated with "''Han ren''" ({{lang|zh-Hant|漢人}}; "Han people").<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=zxPpHkumqbEC&pg=PA266 Liu 2004], p. 266.</ref>

The term ''Zhongguo'' was used initially around the tenth century BCE and did not refer to any specific ethnicity. This ambiguity allowed different interchangeable definitions to come into existence later on. Dynasties of ethnic Han origin used "''Zhongguo''" ({{lang|zh-Hant|中國}}; "Middle Kingdom") to refer to Han areas of their empire. Non-Han founders of dynasties used the term to refer to a combined state of Hans and non-Hans.<ref name="Zhao 2006">[https://web.archive.org/web/20140325231543/https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao%20-%20reinventing%20china.pdf Zhao 2006], p. 4.</ref> The Ming dynasty used ''Zhongguo'' politically to refer to the entire country but culturally to refer to only Han areas of the empire.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=w68uObIhx9MC&pg=PA103 Jiang 2011], p. 103.</ref>

The Xianbei-led Northern Wei referred to itself as "''Zhongguo''" and claimed yogurt as a food of ''Zhongguo''.<ref name="PearceSpiro2001">{{cite book |author1=Scott Pearce |author2=Audrey G. Spiro |author3=Patricia Buckley Ebrey |title=Culture and Power in the Reconstitution of the Chinese Realm, 200-600 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PASE4LVLzQ0C&q=yogurt+fish+wei&pg=PA22 |year=2001 |publisher=Harvard Univ Asia Center |isbn=978-0-674-00523-5 |pages=22– |access-date=2021-05-14 |archive-date=2024-07-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714231729/https://books.google.com/books?id=PASE4LVLzQ0C&q=yogurt+fish+wei&pg=PA22#v=snippet&q=yogurt%20fish%20wei&f=false |url-status=live }}</ref> Similarly, the Jurchen-led Jin dynasty referred to itself as "''Zhongguo''".<ref name="EbreyWalthall">{{cite book |author1=Patricia Buckley Ebrey |author2=Anne Walthall |author3=James B. Palais |title=East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History, Volume I: To 1800 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CWE8AAAAQBAJ&q=border+people+relatively+polite+no+reason+central+kingdom&pg=PA138 |publisher=Cengage Learning |isbn=978-1-111-80815-0 |pages=138– |year=2013 |access-date=2021-05-14 |archive-date=2024-07-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714231730/https://books.google.com/books?id=CWE8AAAAQBAJ&q=border+people+relatively+polite+no+reason+central+kingdom&pg=PA138 |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 1271, Kublai Khan proclaimed the Yuan dynasty with the official name "Great Yuan" ({{lang|zh-Hant|大元}}) and claimed succession from former Chinese dynasties from the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors up to the Tang dynasty. Han Chinese literati during the Mongol period thought that China, after a few centuries of division and dissension, was finally reunified by the Yuan dynasty. Their view was not shared by all contemporaries, especially the Mongols and other non-Han people (Semu) who had quite different ideas about China, and the latter considered several different kingdoms or countries as having been conquered and brought under the control of the Mongols. But similar to the development in Mongol Iran, native intellectuals interested in their own history interpreted the unification by the Mongols as a revival of their dynastic tradition, and the concept of ''Zhongguo'' was considered an important ideology and was further developed by the subsequent Ming dynasty. The revival of the concept of territorial unity, although not intended by the Mongols, became a lasting legacy of Mongol rule in China (and Iran).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kim |first=Hodong |date=2015 |title=Was 'Da Yuan' a Chinese Dynasty? |journal=Journal of Song-Yuan Studies |language=en |volume=45 |issue=1 |pages=279–305 |doi=10.1353/sys.2015.0007 |issn=2154-6665}}</ref>{{Rp|pages=289–292}}

Qing emperors referred to all subjects of the Qing dynasty regardless of their ethnicity as "Chinese" ({{lang|zh-Hant|中國之人}}), and used the term "''Zhongguo''" as a synonym for the entire Qing Empire while using "''neidi''" ({{lang|zh-Hant|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://pdfhost.io/v/hJZFAR.ub_|title=Overseas Chinese, Ethnic Minorities and Nationalism: De-Centering China (2010) (pages 20-22)|author=Elena Barabantseva|publisher=New York: Routledge|date=2010|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816090209/https://pdfhost.io/pdf/0fc4fdb2-c00d-45f7-afb4-19b17e131b15/3ba0e121-fb2e-4536-bc68-dbadb0b4d169.pdf|archivedate=2022-08-16|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eai.or.kr/data/bbs/eng_report/201305161115181.pdf|title=Managing Hegemony in East Asia: China's Rise in Historical Perspective|author=Yuan-kang WANG|publisher=Western Michigan University|date=May 2013|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20220410182539/eai.or.kr/data/bbs/eng_report/201305161115181.pdf|archivedate=2022-04-10|url-status=live}}</ref>

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.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=pt6wlBmUEU0C&pg=PA232 Esherick 2006], p. 232.</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mosca |first=Matthew W. |date=December 2011 |title=The Literati Rewriting of China in the Qianlong-Jiaqing Transition |journal=Late Imperial China |language=en |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=89–132 |doi=10.1353/late.2011.0012 |issn=1086-3257}}</ref> 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.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=pt6wlBmUEU0C&pg=PA251 Esherick 2006], p. 251.</ref>

In an attempt to portray different ethnicities as part of one family ruled by the Qing dynasty, the phrase "''Zhongwai yijia''" ({{lang|zh-Hant|中外一家}}; "interior and exterior as one family") was used to convey the idea of the "unification" of different ethnic groups.{{sfnp|Elliott|Chia|2004|pp=76–77}} After conquering China proper, the Manchus identified their state as "China" ({{lang|zh-Hant|中國}}; {{transliteration|zh|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"<ref>Treaty of Nanking. 1842.</ref> or the "Chinese Empire"<ref>McKinley, William. "Second State of the Union Address". 5 Dec. 1898.</ref>), and foreign affairs. The "Chinese language" (''Dulimbai gurun i bithe'') included Chinese, Manchu, Mongol, and Tibetan languages, while the "Chinese people" ({{lang|zh-Hant|中國之人}}; {{transliteration|zh|Zhōngguó zhī rén}}; Manchu: ''Dulimbai gurun i niyalma'') referred to all subjects of the Qing Empire.{{sfnp|Zhao|2006|pp=n [https://web.archive.org/web/20140325231543/https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao%20-%20reinventing%20china.pdf 4, 7–10, and 12–14]}}

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.{{sfnp|Zhao|2006|pp=[https://web.archive.org/web/20140325231543/https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao%20-%20reinventing%20china.pdf 8 and 12]}}

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''; {{lang|zh-Hant|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."<ref name="Zhao 2006" /> 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.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140325231543/https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao%20-%20reinventing%20china.pdf Zhao 2006], pp. 11-12.</ref>

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.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&dq=Dulimbai+gurun+land&pg=PA77 Dunnell 2004] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230411170150/https://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&dq=Dulimbai+gurun+land&pg=PA77 |date=2023-04-11 }}, p. 77.</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&pg=PA83 Dunnell 2004] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230411180322/https://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&pg=PA83 |date=2023-04-11 }}, p. 83.</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&dq=steppes+mountains+rivers+Dzungar+unified+with+china&pg=PA503 Elliott 2001] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230411180227/https://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&dq=steppes+mountains+rivers+Dzungar+unified+with+china&pg=PA503 |date=2023-04-11 }}, p. 503.</ref>

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?"<ref>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.</ref>

According to scholar Sergius L. Kuzmin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 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.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.academia.edu/7730158 |title=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. |access-date=2015-02-08 |archive-date=2022-02-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220212123001/https://www.academia.edu/7730158/%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2_%D0%A1.%D0%92._%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%A1.%D0%9B._2012._%D0%A7%D1%82%D0%BE_%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%B2_%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%B5_%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B5_Dmitriev_S.V._Kuzmin_S.L._2012._What_is_China_The_Middle_State_in_historical_myth_and_real_policy_ |url-status=live |last1=Kuzmin |first1=Sergius L. }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.academia.edu/7730198 |title=Dmitriev, S.V. and Kuzmin, S.L. 2014. Qing Empire as China: anatomy of a historical myth, Oriens (Moscow), no 1, pp. 5-17 |access-date=2015-02-08 |archive-date=2017-03-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170317062810/http://www.academia.edu/7730198/%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2_%D0%A1.%D0%92._%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%A1.%D0%9B._2014._%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A6%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%B0_Dmitriev_S.V._Kuzmin_S.L._2014._Qing_Empire_as_China_anatomy_of_a_historical_myth_ |url-status=live |last1=Kuzmin |first1=Sergius L. }}</ref> Qing emperors were referred to as "Khagan of China" (or "Chinese khagan") by their Turkic Muslim subjects (now known as the Uyghurs),<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://quod.lib.umich.edu/s/saksaha/13401746.0012.004/--qing-dynasty-and-its-central-asian-neighbors?rgn=main;view=fulltext|title=The Qing Dynasty and Its Central Asian Neighbors|date=2014 |doi=10.3998/saksaha.13401746.0012.004 |access-date=September 17, 2023|archive-date=September 19, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230919014753/https://quod.lib.umich.edu/s/saksaha/13401746.0012.004/--qing-dynasty-and-its-central-asian-neighbors?rgn=main;view=fulltext|url-status=live |last1=Onuma |first1=Takahiro |journal=Saksaha: A Journal of Manchu Studies |volume=12 |issue=20220303 |doi-access=free |hdl=2027/spo.13401746.0012.004 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/1856TreatybetweenTibetandNepal.pdf |title=Treaty between Tibet and Nepal, 1856 (translation) |access-date=2023-09-03 |archive-date=2023-08-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230826224346/http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/1856TreatybetweenTibetandNepal.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Bell|first=Charles|title=Tibet Past and Present|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=diQwEAAAQBAJ|page=278|year=1992|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass|isbn=9788120810679|access-date=2023-10-30|archive-date=2023-10-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231029184635/https://books.google.com/books?id=diQwEAAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Dunnell|first=Ruth|title=New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC|page=124|year=2004|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=9781134362226}}</ref> It is pointed out that Tibetan subjects regarded the Qing as Chinese, unlike the Yuan which was founded by Mongols.<ref>Santa Barbara, "A Union of Religion and Politics: The Tibetan Regency of Ngawang Tsültrim", Page 18</ref> According to 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.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.academia.edu/25907401 |title=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. |access-date=2016-06-11 |archive-date=2018-09-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180921123925/http://www.academia.edu/25907401/Dmitriev_S.V._Kuzmin_S.L._2015._Conquest_dynasties_of_China_or_foreign_empires_The_problem_of_relations_between_China_Yuan_and_Qing |url-status=live |last1=Kuzmin |first1=Sergius L. |last2=Dmitriev |first2=Sergey }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book | first = Richard J. |last = Smith |title = The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Chinese Culture | page = 448 | place = Lantham, Boulder, New York and London | publisher = Rowman and Littlefield | year = 2015 | isbn = 9781442221925}}</ref>

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.<ref name=ModernTerritory1>{{cite book|last1=Esherick|first1=Joseph|last2=Kayali|first2=Hasan|last3=Van Young|first3=Eric|title=Empire to Nation: Historical Perspectives on the Making of the Modern World|year=2006|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=reKxAAAAQBAJ&q=complete+territories+of+manchu,+han,+mongol,+hui,+tibetan&pg=PA245|page=245|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers|isbn=9780742578159|access-date=2021-05-22|archive-date=2024-07-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714231730/https://books.google.com/books?id=reKxAAAAQBAJ&q=complete+territories+of+manchu,+han,+mongol,+hui,+tibetan&pg=PA245#v=snippet&q=complete%20territories%20of%20manchu%2C%20han%2C%20mongol%2C%20hui%2C%20tibetan&f=false|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=ModernTerritory2>{{cite book|last1=Zhai|first1=Zhiyong|title=憲法何以中國|year=2017|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ziEwDwAAQBAJ&q=%E4%BB%8D%E5%90%88%E6%BB%BF%E3%80%81%E6%BC%A2%E3%80%81%E8%92%99%E3%80%81%E5%9B%9E%E3%80%81%E8%97%8F%E4%BA%94%E6%97%8F%E5%AE%8C%E5%85%A8%E9%A0%98%E5%9C%9F%E7%82%BA%E4%B8%80%E5%A4%A7%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B&pg=PA190|page=190|publisher=City University of HK Press|isbn=9789629373214|access-date=2021-05-22|archive-date=2024-07-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714231730/https://books.google.com/books?id=ziEwDwAAQBAJ&q=%E4%BB%8D%E5%90%88%E6%BB%BF%E3%80%81%E6%BC%A2%E3%80%81%E8%92%99%E3%80%81%E5%9B%9E%E3%80%81%E8%97%8F%E4%BA%94%E6%97%8F%E5%AE%8C%E5%85%A8%E9%A0%98%E5%9C%9F%E7%82%BA%E4%B8%80%E5%A4%A7%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B&pg=PA190#v=snippet&q=%E4%BB%8D%E5%90%88%E6%BB%BF%E3%80%81%E6%BC%A2%E3%80%81%E8%92%99%E3%80%81%E5%9B%9E%E3%80%81%E8%97%8F%E4%BA%94%E6%97%8F%E5%AE%8C%E5%85%A8%E9%A0%98%E5%9C%9F%E7%82%BA%E4%B8%80%E5%A4%A7%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B&f=false|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=ModernTerritory3>{{cite book|last1=Gao|first1=Quanxi|title=政治憲法與未來憲制|year=2016|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P46rDAAAQBAJ&q=%E4%BB%8D%E5%90%88%E6%BB%BF%E3%80%81%E6%BC%A2%E3%80%81%E8%92%99%E3%80%81%E5%9B%9E%E3%80%81%E8%97%8F%E4%BA%94%E6%97%8F%E5%AE%8C%E5%85%A8%E9%A0%98%E5%9C%9F%E7%82%BA%E4%B8%80%E5%A4%A7%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B&pg=PA273|page=273|publisher=City University of HK Press|isbn=9789629372910|access-date=2021-05-22|archive-date=2024-07-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714231730/https://books.google.com/books?id=P46rDAAAQBAJ&q=%E4%BB%8D%E5%90%88%E6%BB%BF%E3%80%81%E6%BC%A2%E3%80%81%E8%92%99%E3%80%81%E5%9B%9E%E3%80%81%E8%97%8F%E4%BA%94%E6%97%8F%E5%AE%8C%E5%85%A8%E9%A0%98%E5%9C%9F%E7%82%BA%E4%B8%80%E5%A4%A7%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B&pg=PA273#v=snippet&q=%E4%BB%8D%E5%90%88%E6%BB%BF%E3%80%81%E6%BC%A2%E3%80%81%E8%92%99%E3%80%81%E5%9B%9E%E3%80%81%E8%97%8F%E4%BA%94%E6%97%8F%E5%AE%8C%E5%85%A8%E9%A0%98%E5%9C%9F%E7%82%BA%E4%B8%80%E5%A4%A7%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B&f=false|url-status=live}}</ref> The nationalistic concept of the ''Zhonghua minzu'' (Chinese nation) also traces its roots to the multiethnic and multicultural nature of the Qing Empire.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Culture, Music Education, and the Chinese Dream in Mainland China|author = Wai-Chung Ho|publisher = Springer Nature Singapore|year = 2018|isbn = 9789811075339|page = 38}}</ref>

== Related == === Alternative views === Former history professor Hugh R. Clark presents another view on the subject. In his formulation, Chineseness centered around the culture of the Central Plain built up over time. Each major Chinese dynasty represented the frontier of what was Sinitic, beyond which was considered uncivilized. When a new dynasty gained control of the Central Plain, elements of an outside culture would be added to what had come before. In this way, most Chinese dynasties, not just the Yuan and the Qing, can be regarded as conquest dynasties, even traditionally Sinitic ones such as the Zhou and the Qin.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Clark |first1=Hugh R. |date=May 2018 |title=What's the Matter with "China"? A Critique of Teleological History |journal=The Journal of Asian Studies |volume=77 |issue=2 |pages=295–314 |doi=10.1017/S0021911817001358}}</ref>

=== CCP rejection of the concept === {{further|History of Qing (People's Republic)#Criticism}} The ''History of Qing'' is a project initiated by the late historian Dai Yi and sponsored by the State Council of the People's Republic of China since 2002 for an official history of the Qing dynasty, as a revision of the 1928 ''Draft History of Qing''. In November 2023, Taisu Zhang of Yale Law School stated that he had learnt the work eventually failed to pass political review.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ji |first=Xiaohua |author-mask=Ji Xiaohua (紀曉華) |date=2023-11-07 |title=Zhōngguó guānchá: Wèi tōngguò zhèngshěn "Qīngshǐ" chùjiāo |script-title=zh:中國觀察：未通過政審《清史》觸礁 |trans-title=China Watch: "History of Qing" failed to pass political review and has hit a snag |url=https://www.singtaousa.com/4660464 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118234149/https://www.singtaousa.com/2023-11-07/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E8%A7%80%E5%AF%9F%EF%BC%9A%E6%9C%AA%E9%80%9A%E9%81%8E%E6%94%BF%E5%AF%A9-%E3%80%8A%E6%B8%85%E5%8F%B2%E3%80%8B%E8%A7%B8%E7%A4%81/4660464 |archive-date=2023-11-18 |access-date=2023-11-18 |website=Sing Tao Daily |language=zh}}</ref> Following the review failure, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), requested scholars working on the project to make changes to the tome to better align with Xi's vision for the future.<ref name=":02" /> According to historian Pamela Kyle Crossley, the CCP under Xi has rejected the concept of conquest dynasties because it could encourage separatist sentiments in Tibet and Xinjiang as well as advance calls for Taiwanese independence.<ref name=":02">{{Cite news |last=Wong |first=Chun Han |title=Xi Jinping's Historians Can't Stop Rewriting China's Imperial Past |url=https://www.wsj.com/world/china/xi-jinpings-historians-cant-stop-rewriting-chinas-imperial-past-f59d6e2d |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240323104532/https://www.wsj.com/world/china/xi-jinpings-historians-cant-stop-rewriting-chinas-imperial-past-f59d6e2d |archive-date=2024-03-23 |access-date=2024-03-23 |work=The Wall Street Journal |language=en-US}}</ref> Crossley further stated that "[a]ccording to Xi Jinping, there have been no conquests in Chinese history. Only happy unifications with people aspiring to be Chinese."<ref name=":02" />

==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 considered "infiltration dynasties" by Karl August Wittfogel.<ref>{{Cite book|title = History of Chinese Society-Liao: Transactions, American Philosophical Society (Vol. 36, Part 1)|author = Karl A Wittfogel|publisher = American Philosophical Society|year = 1946|isbn = 9781422377192|page = 24}}</ref><ref>China Handbook Editorial Committee, ''China Handbook Series: History'' (trans., Dun J. Li), Beijing, 1982, pp. 188–189; and Shao Chang Lee, "China Cultural Development" (wall chart), East Lansing, 1984.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last = Wilkinson |first = Endymion Porter |year = 2018 |title = Chinese History: A New Manual |edition = 5th |publisher = Harvard University Asia Center |location = Cambridge, MA |isbn = 9780998888309 }} Specifically Section A.2 "Dynasties", in this and earlier editions, which includes subsections on "Naming the Dynasties", "Sets of Dynasties", "The Dynastic Cycle", "Legitimate Succession", "Grade School History" (the effect on common understanding of China's history).</ref><ref>Tan Qixiang. [http://www.guoxue123.com/other/map/zgmap/ ''The Historical Atlas of China'']</ref>

{| class="wikitable" |- !Ethnicity !Conquest dynasty !Period of rule !Territorial extent |- |rowspan=13|Xianbei {{lang|zh-Hant|鮮卑}} |Tuyuhun {{lang|zh-Hant|吐谷渾}} |284–670 CE |rowspan=45|Parts of China proper |- |Former Yan {{lang|zh-Hant|前燕}} |337–370 CE |- |Later Yan {{lang|zh-Hant|後燕}} |384–409 CE |- |Western Qin {{lang|zh-Hant|西秦}} |385–400 CE, 409–431 CE |- |Southern Liang {{lang|zh-Hant|南涼}} |397–414 CE |- |Southern Yan {{lang|zh-Hant|南燕}} |398–410 CE |- |Dai {{lang|zh-Hant|代}} |310–376 CE |- |Duan Qi {{lang|zh-Hant|段齊}} |350–356 CE |- |Western Yan {{lang|zh-Hant|西燕}} |384–394 CE |- |Northern Wei {{lang|zh-Hant|北魏}} |386–535 CE |- |Eastern Wei {{lang|zh-Hant|東魏}} |534–550 CE |- |Western Wei {{lang|zh-Hant|西魏}} |535–557 CE |- |Northern Zhou {{lang|zh-Hant|北周}} |557–581 CE |- |rowspan=4|Di {{lang|zh-Hant|氐}} |Chouchi {{lang|zh-Hant|仇池}} |296–371 CE, 385–443 CE |- |Cheng-Han {{lang|zh-Hant|成漢}} |304–347 CE |- |Former Qin {{lang|zh-Hant|前秦}} |351–394 CE |- |Later Liang {{lang|zh-Hant|後涼}} |386–403 CE |- |rowspan=4|Xiongnu {{lang|zh-Hant|匈奴}} |Han-Zhao {{lang|zh-Hant|漢趙}} |304–329 CE |- |Northern Liang {{lang|zh-Hant|北涼}} |397–439 CE |- |Hu Xia {{lang|zh-Hant|胡夏}} |407–431 CE |- |Xu {{lang|zh-Hant|許}} |618–619 CE |- |rowspan=2|Jie {{lang|zh-Hant|羯}} |Later Zhao {{lang|zh-Hant|後趙}} |319–351 CE |- |Hou Han {{lang|zh-Hant|侯漢}} |551–552 CE |- |Qiang {{lang|zh-Hant|羌}} |Later Qin {{lang|zh-Hant|後秦}} |384–417 CE |- |Dingling {{lang|zh-Hant|丁零}} |Zhai Wei {{lang|zh-Hant|翟魏}} |388–392 CE |- |Sogdian {{lang|zh-Hant|粟特}}<ref>An Lushan's father was of Sogdian and his mother was of Göktürk origin.</ref> |Former Yan {{lang|zh-Hant|前燕}} |756–759 CE |- |Göktürk {{lang|zh-Hant|突厥}} |Later Yan {{lang|zh-Hant|後燕}} |759–763 CE |- |rowspan=5|Shatuo {{lang|zh-Hant|沙陀}} |Former Jin {{lang|zh-Hant|前晉}} |907–923 CE |- |Later Tang {{lang|zh-Hant|後唐}} |923–937 CE |- |Later Jin<ref>{{cite wikisource|舊五代史/卷75|''Wudai Shi'' ch. 75.|zh}} 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.</ref> {{lang|zh-Hant|後晉}} |936–947 CE |- |Later Han<ref>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'', [https://archive.org/stream/06049337.cn#page/n30/mode/2up 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</ref> {{lang|zh-Hant|後漢}} |947–951 CE |- |Northern Han {{lang|zh-Hant|北漢}} |951–979 CE |- |rowspan=6|Khitan {{lang|zh-Hant|契丹}} |Liao dynasty {{lang|zh-Hant|遼朝}} |916–1125 CE |- |Dongdan {{lang|zh-Hant|東丹}} |926–936 CE |- |Northern Liao {{lang|zh-Hant|北遼}} |1122–1123 CE |- |Western Liao {{lang|zh-Hant|西遼}} |1124–1218 CE |- |Eastern Liao {{lang|zh-Hant|東遼}} |1213–1269 CE |- |Later Liao {{lang|zh-Hant|後遼}} |1216–1219 CE |- |rowspan=2|Baiman {{lang|zh-Hant|白蠻}} |Dali {{lang|zh-Hant|大理}} |937–1094 CE, 1096–1253 CE |- |Dazhong {{lang|zh-Hant|大中}} |1094–1096 CE |- |rowspan=2|Tangut {{lang|zh-Hant|党項}} |Western Xia {{lang|zh-Hant|西夏}} |1038–1227 CE |- |Shun dynasty {{lang|zh-Hant|順朝}} |1644–1646 CE |- |rowspan=3|Jurchen {{lang|zh-Hant|女真}} |Jin dynasty {{lang|zh-Hant|金朝}} |1115–1234 CE |- |Eastern Xia {{lang|zh-Hant|東夏}} |1215–1233 CE |- |Later Jin {{lang|zh-Hant|後金}} |1616–1636 CE |- |rowspan=2|Mongol {{lang|zh-Hant|蒙古}} |Yuan dynasty {{lang|zh-Hant|元朝}} |1271–1368 CE |All of China proper |- |Northern Yuan {{lang|zh-Hant|北元}} |1368–1635 CE |Parts of China proper |- |Manchu {{lang|zh-Hant|滿洲}} |Qing dynasty {{lang|zh-Hant|清朝}} |1644–1912 CE |All of China proper |}

==References== ===Citations=== {{Reflist}}

===Sources=== {{Library resources box}}{{refbegin}} * {{cite book |title=The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World |first=Michal |last=Biran |date=September 15, 2005 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B934LaVBaz8C |isbn=978-0-521-84226-6 |access-date=October 8, 2015 |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801074557/https://books.google.com/books?id=B934LaVBaz8C |url-status=live }} * {{cite book |title=New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde |first1=Ruth W. |last1=Dunnell |first2=Mark C. |last2=Elliott |first3=Philippe |last3=Foret |first4=James A |last4=Millward |year=2004 |publisher=Routledge |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC |isbn=1134362226 |accessdate=10 March 2014 }} * {{cite book |title=The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China |first=Mark C. |last=Elliott |edition=illustrated, reprint |year=2001 |publisher=Stanford University Press |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC |isbn=0804746842 |accessdate=10 March 2014 |archive-date=11 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230411170225/https://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC |url-status=live }} * {{cite book |last1=Elliott |first1=Mark C. |last2=Chia |first2=Ning |author-link1=Mark Elliott (historian) |chapter=The Qing hunt at Mulan |editor-last1=Dunnell |editor-first1=Ruth W. |editor-last2=Elliott |editor-first2=Mark C. |editor-last3=Forêt |editor-first3=Philippe |editor-last4=Millward |editor-first4=James A. |title=New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde |year=2004 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9780415320061 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC }} * {{cite journal |jstor = 20062627 |doi = 10.1177/0097700405282349 |title = Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century |journal = Modern China |last = Zhao |first = Gang |volume = 32 |pages = 3–30 |number = 1 |date = January 2006 |publisher = Sage Publications |s2cid = 144587815 }} {{refend}}{{Historiography}} Category:Dynasties of China Category:Historiography of China Category:Liao dynasty Category:Jin dynasty (1115–1234) Category:Yuan dynasty Category:Qing dynasty Category:Empires Category:Controversies in China