New Qing History

Last updated

The New Qing History is a historiographical school that gained prominence in the United States in the mid-1990s by offering a wide-ranging revision of history of the Manchu Qing dynasty. [1] Earlier historians had emphasized the power of Han Chinese to “sinicize” their conquerors, that is, to assimilate and make them Chinese in their thought and institutions. In the 1980s and early 1990s, American scholars began to learn Manchu and took advantage of newly opened Chinese- and Manchu-language archives. This research found that the Manchu rulers were savvy in manipulating their subjects and from the 1630s through at least the 18th century, emperors developed a sense of Manchu identity and used Central Asian models of rule as much as they did Confucian ones. According to some scholars, at the height of their power, the Qing regarded "China" as only a part, although a very important part, of a much wider empire that extended into the Inner Asian territories of Mongolia, Tibet, the Northeast (today sometimes called Manchuria) and Xinjiang, or Chinese (Eastern) Turkestan. [2]


Some scholars (including the late Ping-ti Ho) have criticized the approach for exaggerating the Manchu character of the dynasty, and some in China accuse the American historians in the group of imposing American concerns with race and identity or even of imperialist misunderstanding to weaken China. Still others in China agree that this scholarship has opened new vistas for the study of Qing history. [3] [4]

The use of "New Qing History" as an approach is to be distinguished from the multi-volume history of the Qing dynasty that the Chinese State Council has been writing since 2003, which is also occasionally called "New Qing History" in English. [5] In fact, this state project, a revision of the 1930s Draft History of Qing , is specifically written to refute the New Qing History. [6]


Prominent scholars who have been associated with the New Qing History, including Evelyn Rawski, Mark Elliott, Pamela Kyle Crossley, Laura Hostetler, Philippe Forêt, and others, despite differing among themselves on important points, represent an "Inner Asian" and "Eurasian" turn, which conceived the Manchu-centered Qing as fundamentally different from most earlier dynasties but as similar to the Ottoman, Mogul, and Romanov Empires across the Eurasian landmass. They argued that the Qing saw itself as a universal empire, a multi-national polity, which with China as only the most central and economically important component. They date the founding of the empire from 1636, when the dynasty was proclaimed, rather than from 1644, when the Qing took control of Beijing. The historians argued that "Manchu" identity was deliberately created only after the takeover of China and that the new racial identity was important but "fungible," easily exchanged for others. The first rulers of the dynasty played the Confucian role of Son of Heaven but at the same time, often behind the backs of their Han Chinese ministers, adopted other roles to rule other ethnic groups.

The military expansion of frontiers, which Han Chinese ministers often opposed, as it drained resources from China proper, showed that the Qing empire was not only a victim of imperialism but also practiced imperialism itself. Some of the historians followed Evelyn Rawski calling the Qing "Early Modern," rather than "late imperial," on the grounds that the Manchus created a centralized empire that the Ming could not have created. [7]


The origins of the New Qing History lie in Inner Asian Studies . A Harvard historian, Joseph Fletcher, studied the languages and culture of Central Asia. He was among those to discredit the idea that nearly all Manchu documents were translations from Chinese and that they would add little to the record. He wrote in 1981, "Qing scholars who want to do first-class work in the archives must, from now on, learn Manchu and routinely compare the Manchu and Chinese sources for their topics of research." Beatrice Bartlett, a Yale historian who had studied Manchu with Fletcher, reported in an article, 'Books of Revelations', that the archives in Taiwan and Beijing revealed many secrets, which required knowledge of Manchu. [8]

The Grand Council of the Yongzheng emperor, for instance, operated only in Manchu until the 1730s, and many other important edicts and memorials did not have Chinese translations. Official use of Manchu, she argued, did not decline during the 19th century. She concluded that the archives of Manchu materials were more likely to be complete, as they were less likely to have been raided, weeded or lost. [9]

The New Qing History took on distinct form in the mid-1990s. In 1993, Crossley and Rawski summarized the arguments for using Manchu-language materials, materials, which they and others had explored in the newly opened archives in Beijing and were beginning to use in their publications. [10] Evelyn Rawski's presidential address, "Re-envisioning the Qing: The Significance of the Qing Period in Chinese History," at the annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies in 1996, particularly criticized the question of the "sinicization" of the Qing that had been raised by Ping-ti Ho in his 1967 article "The Significance of the Ch'ing Period in Chinese History." Rawski's thought was based on a Manchu-centric concept of history and indicated that the reason the Qing rulers could successfully govern China for nearly 300 years was not the result of sinicization, adopting the characteristics of Han Chinese rule and culture, but by their focus on retaining the characteristics of Manchu culture. They used such characteristics to strengthen relations with other nationalities to build a multiracial empire that included Manchu, Han, Mongol, Tibetan, Uyghur and other nationalities. [11] For better governing his multiethnic empire, for instance, the Kangxi emperor located his summer residence in the Chengde Mountain Resort, north of the Great Wall. That became the historical core of city of Chengde, which the Qianlong emperor enlarged considerably, including a replica of the Potala Palace in Lhasa. [12]

In response, Ping-ti Ho published "In Defense of Sinicization: A Rebuttal of Evelyn Rawski's 'Re-envisioning the Qing'". He argued that the pattern of Chinese history was for a conquest dynasty to adopt Chinese ways of rule and culture and attacked Rawski for Manchu-centrism. [13]

The school that is now known as the "New Qing History" developed after the debate. [14] In 2011, historian Huang Pei published a monograph that developed the objections stated by Ho Ping-ti. [15]

There are differences among the scholars in the loose group. For example, Rawski's Re-envisioning the Qing and Elliott’s The Manchu Way regard the Qing as a Manchu empire, with China being only one part. Nevertheless, Pamela Kyle Crossley sees the empire not as a Manchu empire but as a "simultaneous" system in which the rulership is not subordinate to the Chinese or any other single culture. She criticized the new "Manchu-centered" school for romanticism and a reliance upon disproved theories about "Altaic" language and history, but she seems to include herself in the Qing empire school, which she calls "Qing Studies." [16]

In 2015, historian Richard J. Smith reported that an interpretive "middle ground" had emerged between the views of Rawski and Crossley, on one hand, and Ho and Huang, on the other. Smith himself had come to the conclusion that "the Qing empire" and "China" were not the same thing and that the Qing had to be placed in not only a Manchu context but one that included Inner Asia in general and that saw China in a global field. The less "sinocentric" view, Smith continued, which placed less emphasis on "sinicization," had won over most Western scholars on China, in spite of debates over "matters of degree." [17]


The arguments put forward in the New Qing History inspired debate on a number of specific points.

Dispute over term "China"

The scholar Zhao Gang responded against the revisionist historians by noting that they claimed that the Qing used only "China" (中國) to encompass only Han people (漢人) and "China proper" and pointed out that in fact that China proper and Han people were not synonymous with "China" in the Qing view according to Mark Elliott's own work. [18] The Han dynasty used Zhongguo (中國) to refer only to Han areas, but the Qing dynasty reinvented the definition of Zhongguo (中國) to refer to non-Han areas as well. [19] Zhao Gang cited Qing documents with Qing being used for the Manchu term Dulimbai Gurun (a direct translation of "中國", Zhongguo; "Middle Kingdom") in Manchu texts and Zhongguo in Chinese texts to refer to the entire Qing including Manchuria, Xinjiang, Mongolia, and Tibet as "China", in official documents, edicts, treaties, [20] in texts like the Treaty of Nerchinsk, [21] Convention of Kyakhta (1768), [22] a 1755 pronouncement by the Qianlong Emperor, [23] and a Manchu language memorial on the conquest of Dzungaria, [24] [25] [26] [27] and Qianlong's arguments for the annexation of Xinjiang, [28] and in Qianlong's sinicization policies in parts of Xinjiang. [29]

Mark Elliott wrote that it was under the Qing that "China" transformed into a definition of referring to lands where the "state claimed sovereignty," rather than only the Central Plains area and its people by the end of the 18th century. [30]

Elena Barabantseva has also noted that the Manchu referred to all subjects of the Qing empire regardless of ethnicity as "Chinese" (中國之人), and they used the term Zhongguo (中國) as a synonym for the entire Qing empire but used "Hanren" (漢人) to refer only to the core area of the empire, with the entire empire viewed as multiethnic. [31]

Joseph W. Esherick observes that while the Qing Emperors governed frontier non-Han areas in a different, separate system under the Lifan Yuan and kept them separate from Han areas and administration, it was the Manchu Qing Emperors who expanded the definition of Zhongguo (中國) and made it "flexible" by using that term to refer to the entire empire. [32]

Other points

Scholars have disagreed on whether or how much the Manchu rulers used new forms of imperial ritual to display new forms of empire or continued rituals from the Ming to show that they saw themselves as heirs of a Han Chinese empire. Roger Des Forges' review of David M. Robinson's Martial Spectacles of the Ming Court criticized scholars of conquest dynasties and New Qing History and disagreed with the idea that the "Royal hunt" was a differing factor between Han Chinese and conquest dynasties. He noted that the martial themed Ming dynasty Grand Review was copied by the Qing and disagreed with those who sought to present it as a Qing feature. He praised Robinson in differing from scholars who selected certain Ming and Qing emperors to contrast their difference and for not conflating Han with "Chinese" and not translating the term "Zhongguo". [33]

The New Qing History, according to Tristan G. Brown, writing in 2011, did not explore the example of Islam and Muslims to test their argument that the early Qing emperors aspired to be universal monarchs. Brown finds that an inscription by the Qianlong emperor showed that he wanted to incorporate both Xinjiang and Islam into his empire and that this inscription, along with the "inventive structural duality of Chinese-Islamic architecture with Central Asian Turkish-Islamic architectural forms," makes the "most compelling case" that New Qing History is also applicable to Chinese Islam. [34]

In China (Opposition)

In the journal Chinese Social Sciences Today, an official publication of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Li Zhiting, a scholar working on the National Qing Dynasty Compilation Committee, charged that "'New Qing History' is academically absurd, and politically does damage to the unity of China...." He sought to "expose its mask of pseudo-academic scholarship, eliminating the deleterious effect it has had on scholarship in China." Li went on to charge that the "whole range of views [New Qing History scholars] express are cliches and stereotypes, little more than dusted off versions in a scholarly tone of the Western imperialism and Japanese imperialism of the 19th century". American scholars such as Evelyn Rawski, Mark Elliott, Pamela Kyle Crossley, and James Millward, Li continued, "view the history of China from an imperialist standpoint, with imperialist points of view and imperialist eyes, regarding 'traditional' China as an 'empire,' regarding the Qing dynasty as 'Qing dynasty imperialism.'" [35]

Major works

See also

Related Research Articles

Qing dynasty Chinese Dynasty in Eastern Asia from 1636-1912/1917

The Qing dynasty or the Qing Empire, officially the Great Qing, was the last imperial dynasty of China. It was established in 1636, and ruled China proper from 1644 to 1912, with a brief restoration in 1917. It was preceded by the Ming dynasty and succeeded by the Republic of China. The multiethnic Qing empire lasted for almost three centuries and formed the territorial base for modern China. It was the fourth largest empire in world history in terms of territorial size in 1790, also making it the largest Chinese dynasty. At a population of 432 million in 1912, it was the world's most populous country.

China proper Geopolitical term

China proper, Inner China or the Eighteen Provinces was a term used by Western writers on the Manchu-led Qing dynasty to express a distinction between the core and frontier regions of China. There is no fixed extent for China proper, as many administrative, cultural, and linguistic shifts have occurred in Chinese history. One definition refers to the original area of Chinese civilization, the Central Plain ; another to the "Eighteen Provinces" system of the Qing dynasty. There is no direct translation for "China proper" in the Chinese language due to differences in terminology used by the Qing to refer to the regions and the expression is controversial among scholars, particularly in China, due to national territorial claims.

The Manchu are an ethnic minority in China and the people from whom Manchuria derives its name. They are sometimes called "red-tasseled Manchus", a reference to the ornamentation on traditional Manchu hats. The Later Jin (1616–1636) and Qing dynasty (1636–1912) were established and ruled by Manchus, who are descended from the Jurchen people who earlier established the Jin dynasty (1115–1234) in China.

The Eight Banners were administrative and military divisions under the Later Jin and the Qing dynasty of China into which all Manchu households were placed. In war, the Eight Banners functioned as armies, but the banner system was also the basic organizational framework of all of Manchu society. Created in the early 17th century by Nurhaci, the banner armies played an instrumental role in his unification of the fragmented Jurchen people and in the Qing dynasty's conquest of the Ming dynasty.

Qianlong Emperor 5th Emperor of the Qing dynasty

The Qianlong Emperor was the fifth Emperor of the Qing dynasty, and the fourth Qing emperor to rule over China proper, reigned from 1735 to 1796. Born Hongli, the fourth son of the Yongzheng Emperor, he reigned officially from 11 October 1735 to 8 February 1796. In 1796, he abdicated in favour of his son, the Jiaqing Emperor—a filial act in order not to reign longer than his grandfather, the Kangxi Emperor, who ruled for 61 years. Despite his retirement, however, he retained ultimate power as the Retired Emperor until his death in 1799. He thus was one of the longest-reigning rulers in the history of the world, and dying at the age of 87, one of the longest-lived. As a capable and cultured ruler inheriting a thriving empire, during his long reign the Qing Empire reached its most splendid and prosperous era, boasting a large population and economy. As a military leader, he led military campaigns expanding the dynastic territory to the largest extent by conquering and sometimes destroying Central Asian kingdoms. This turned around in his late years: the Qing empire began to decline with corruption and wastefulness in his court and a stagnating civil society.

Pamela Kyle Crossley is a historian of modern China, northern Asia, and global history and holds the Charles and Elfriede Collis Professor of History, Dartmouth College. She is a founding appointment of the Dartmouth Society of Fellows.

De-Sinicization refers to a process of eliminating or reducing Chinese cultural elements, identity, or consciousness from a society or nation. In modern contexts, it is often used in tandem with decolonization and contrasted to the assimilation process of Sinicization.

A conquest dynasty in the history of China refers to a Chinese dynasty established by non-Han ethnicities that ruled parts or all of China proper, the traditional heartland of the Han people.

The History of Liao, or Liao Shi, is a Chinese historical book compiled officially by the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty (1271–1368), under the direction of the historian Toqto'a (Tuotuo), and finalized in 1344. Based on Khitan's primary sources and other previous official Chinese records, it details the Khitan people, Khitan's tribal life and traditions, as well as the official histories of the Liao dynasty and its successor, the Western Liao dynasty.

Ping-ti Ho or Bingdi He, who also wrote under the name P.T. Ho, was a Chinese-American historian. He wrote widely on China's history, including works on demography, plant history, ancient archaeology, and contemporary events. He taught at University of Chicago for most of his career, and was President of the Association for Asian Studies in 1975, the first scholar of Asian descent to have that honor.

Mark C. Elliott is the Mark Schwartz Professor of Chinese and Inner Asian History at Harvard University, where he is Vice Provost for International Affairs. He is also one of the scholars who form part of the school called the New Qing History.

Shamanism was the dominant religion of the Jurchen people of northeast Asia and of their descendants, the Manchu people. As early as the Jin dynasty (1111–1234), the Jurchens conducted shamanic ceremonies at shrines called tangse. There were two kinds of shamans: those who entered in a trance and let themselves be possessed by the spirits, and those who conducted regular sacrifices to heaven, to a clan's ancestors, or to the clan's protective spirits.

Dzungar genocide

The Dzungar genocide was the mass extermination of the Mongol Dzungar people, at the hands of the Qing dynasty. The Qianlong Emperor ordered the genocide due to the rebellion in 1755 by Dzungar leader Amursana against Qing rule, after the dynasty first conquered the Dzungar Khanate with Amursana's support. The genocide was perpetrated by Manchu generals of the Qing army sent to crush the Dzungars, supported by Uyghur allies and vassals due to the Uyghur revolt against Dzungar rule.

Identity in the Eight Banners considers the subject of how identity was interpreted in China prior to and during the Manchu-led Qing dynasty (1644–1912). China consisted of multiple ethnic groups, primarily Han, Mongol and Manchu. Identity, however, was defined much more by culture, language and participation in the military until the Qianlong Emperor resurrected the ethnic classifications.

Imperial hunt of the Qing dynasty

The imperial hunt of the Qing dynasty was an annual rite of the emperors of China during the Qing dynasty (1636–1912). It was first organized in 1681 by the Kangxi Emperor at the imperial hunting grounds at Mulan (modern-day Weichang Manchu and Mongol Autonomous County, near what would become the summer residence of the Qing emperors at Chengde. Starting in 1683 the event was held annually at Mulan during the autumn, lasting up to a month. The Qing dynasty hunt was a synthesis of earlier Chinese and Inner Asian hunting traditions, particularly those of the Manchus and Mongols. The emperor himself participated in the hunt, along with thousands of soldiers, imperial family members, and government officials.

Evelyn Sakakida Rawski is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of History of the University of Pittsburgh and a scholar in Chinese and Inner Asian history. She was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of Japanese-American ancestry. She served as president of the Association for Asian Studies in 1995–1996.

The Qing dynasty was founded by the Jurchen Aisin Gioro clan in Manchuria in the 17th century and became known by various names. Although it was established by the Manchu people, a Tungusic people ethnically unrelated to the native Han, it was widely known in English as China or the Chinese Empire both during its existence, especially internationally, and after the fall of the dynasty.

Qing dynasty in Inner Asia Historical territories of the Manchu-led Qing empire

The Qing dynasty in Inner Asia was the expansion of the Qing dynasty's realm in Inner Asia in the 17th and the 18th century AD, including both Inner and Outer Mongolia, Manchuria, Tibet, Qinghai and Xinjiang.

Sinicization of the Manchus is the process in which the Manchu people became assimilated into Han Chinese society. The sinicization of the Manchus occurred most prominently during the Qing Dynasty when attempts were made by the new Manchu rulers to assimilate the Manchus and the Han Chinese under the new dynasty.


  1. Grace Yen Shen, Unearthing the Nation: Modern Geology and Nationalism in Republican China, (University of California Press, 2014), 200 note4.
  2. Waley-Cohen (2004), p. 194-197.
  3. Ding (2009), p.  .
  4. Xin Fan, "The anger of Ping-Ti Ho: the Chinese nationalism of a double exile." Storia della storiografia 69.1 (2016): 147-160.
  5. Mao, Liping; Zhao, Ma (2012). ""Writing History in the Digital Age": The New Qing History Project and the Digitization of Qing Archives". History Compass. 10 (5): 367–374. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2012.00841.x.
  6. 为什么新清史是中共的国安问题
  7. Rowe (2009), p.  4-10.
  8. Bartlett, Beatrice S. (1985). "Books of Revelations: The Importance of the Manchu Language Archival Record Books for Research on Ch'ing History". Late Imperial China. 6 (2): 25–36. doi:10.1353/late.1985.0000.
  9. Both quoted in Roth Li, Gertrude (2010). Manchu: A Textbook for Reading Documents. National Foreign Language Resource Center. p. 11. ISBN   9780980045956 . Retrieved January 29, 2017.
  10. CrossleyRawski (1993).
  11. Rawski (1996).
  12. Forêt (2000)
  13. Ho (1998).
  14. Pamela Kyle Crossley, Beyond the culture: my comments on New Qing history
  15. Huang (2011).
  16. "A Reserved View of the New Qing History"
  17. Smith (2015), p.  ix-xi.
  18. Zhao 2006, p. 4.
  19. Zhao 2006, p. 4.
  20. Zhao 2006, pp. 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14.
  21. Zhao (2006), pp.  8 and 12.
  22. Zhao 2006, p. 14.
  23. Zhao 2006, p. 4.
  24. Zhao 2006, p. 12.
  25. Dunnell 2004, p. 77.
  26. Dunnell 2004, p. 83.
  27. Elliott 2001, p. 503.
  28. Zhao 2006, pp. 11-12.
  29. Zhao 2006, p. 18, 19, 25.
  30. Elliot 2000, p. 638.
  31. Barabantseva 2010, p. 20.
  32. Esherick 2006, p. 232.
  33. Roger des Forges, (Review) Journal of Chinese Studies No. 60 – (January 2015) pp. 302-303.
  34. Brown, Tristan G. (July 2011). "Towards an Understanding of Qianlong's Conception of Islam: A Study of the Dedication Inscriptions of the Fragrant Concubine's Mosque in the Imperial Capital" (PDF). Journal of Chinese Studies. 53: 138, 145.
  35. Li, Zhiting 李治亭 (April 20, 2015). "Scholars Criticize 'New Qing History': An Example of 'New Imperialist' History". Chinese Social Sciences Today. quoted and translated in "A righteous view of history". China Media Project. April 2015.

Further reading