Reviewed by: The Jiankang Empire in Chinese and World History by Andrew Chittick Keith N. Knapp The Jiankang Empire in Chinese and World History by Andrew Chittick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. Pp. xi + 411. $90.00 hardcover, $89.99 e-book. Andrew Chittick has written the first English work that provides a full overview of the Six Dynasties (Liuchao 六朝), comprising Wu 吳 (220–280), Eastern Jin 晉 (318–420), Liu Song 劉宋 (420–479), Southern Qi 齊 (479–502), Liang 梁 (502–557), and Chen 陳 (557–589). This bold, pioneering, and insightful book concludes that we should refer to these polities as the Jiankang 建康 empire, since they had the same city (present-day Nanjing) as their capital and shared numerous characteristics. Chittick's book furnishes a penetrating analysis of the Jiankang empire, covering its linguistic complexity, political culture, frontier policy, military affairs, economic trends, and popular religion, as well as its piety in Buddhism. This meticulously researched volume contributes tremendously to our understanding of the Six Dynasties. Anyone who wants to learn about Jiankang society and culture should begin with this book, a treasure trove of information that challenges us to rethink nearly all assumptions about the era: Chittick asks whether inhabitants of these six southern regimes were "Chinese," whether these states resembled regimes in the Central Plains, and whether large numbers of northern refugees had swamped the south; he questions the mistaken assumption that the Jiankang empire had little historical importance. Chittick intriguingly suggests that we [End Page 151] should view these southern regimes as more akin to Southeast Asian kingdoms than to polities in the Chinese heartland. Given the book's extensive scope and boldness, Chittick readily acknowledges that he intends to open up some debate. In that spirit, I offer some disagreement that in no way diminishes the outstanding significance of his work. The Jiankang Empire reframes our interpretation of the six southern regimes and their historical impact. Chittick rightly points out that, except for their cultural achievements, these states have been viewed as a historical afterthought. Chittick seeks to shed a different light on these regimes and provide them with a new name. Since these regimes shared the same capital and many similar features, we should recognize their mutual characteristics by calling them the Jiankang empire, rather than referring to them as six different entities. Demographically, the Jiankang empire was one of the world's most populous empires in its day. Economically, it was a commercial powerhouse that actively encouraged trade. Its merchant-friendly culture inspired the economic policies of subsequent states, including the southern kingdoms in the tenth century and the Song dynasty (960–1279). Politically, despite frequent regime changes, the empire enjoyed much peace and prosperity. According to Chittick, the Jiankang empire has been marginalized through the lenses of the modern Chinese nation-state. Since the Sui (581–618) conquered the south and "reunited" China, the Jiankang empire was a historical dead end. The problem for Chittick is that the concept of "China" did not exist until later. Sure, the word Zhongguo 中國 (central states) existed during the early medieval period, but it specifically meant the Yellow River Valley at that time. Indeed, as Chittick argues, we should view the landmass associated with present-day China from a larger perspective, by using Victor Lieberman's notion of "exposed zones" and "protected rimlands zones": exposed zones were subject to pastoral nomadic invasions, whereas protected rimlands were not.1 Hence, Chittick proposes that we conceive of early medieval East Asia as divided by the Huai 淮 River into two zones, a Sino-steppe exposed zone and a Sino-Southeast Asia protected rimland. [End Page 152] In terms of language, agriculture, foodways, and political characteristics, Chittick asserts that the Jiankang empire had much more in common with Southeast Asian kingdoms than regimes in the Sino-steppe zone. Jiankang emperors, like their Southeast Asian counterparts, were rarely able to hand down the throne to their chosen successor. They were "men of prowess" (pp. 173–74) who relied on their individual and charismatic qualities, which created short-term networks of clients rather than lasting institutions. Moreover, the administrative system that Jiankang emperors ruled over operated like the mandala systems of Southeast Asian states, where the...
Read full abstract
Jul 27, 2022
Rania Abdel Mohsen + 2
Open Access
