MING PERIODIZATION: AN IMMODEST PROPOSAL

Abstract

AbstractLet me not argue whether conventions for the periodization of the Ming dynasty are necessary, desirable or possible. Let me simply note that most of us do speak of “Early Ming” or “Late Ming” as if we expect our audience to know what we mean. I submit that in many contexts such terms are ambiguous, and sometimes confusing. One solution would be to avoid confusion by referring to reign periods, decades, or centuries. Another solution is to agree to common definitions. I trust we can all agree (a) that as designations of a period of time, without further qualification, the terms “Ming dynasty” and “Ming” mean “1368 to 1644,” and (b) that Chu Yuan-chang's pre-imperial phase and the Southern Ming reigns are not part of “Ming.” As a way of inducing discussion from which a useful consensus if not clarification might evolve, I offer here some proposals, with minimum justification, for the names and terminal points of Ming periods.