Speaker: James Millward, Georgetown University

Periodization by “Chinese dynasties” is a structural foundation of the historiography of continental eastern Eurasia, but even those passingly familiar with the field know the idea is beset with problems: The Chinese dynasties aren’t all “Chinese.” They weren’t all in the same place, but were scattered around geographical China and Inner Asia, often two or more at the same time. What we call “dynasties” go by many names in Chinese (what’s the difference between a chao, a dai, and a guo?). And no one can tell you exactly how many “Chinese dynasties” there were.

Despite these issues, the modern list of “dynasties” is central to the notion of a unified, linear, and continuous “China” that is said to be the “oldest civilization in the form of a state in the world.” This lecture examines charts and tables of monarchs and polities from Sinitic and European traditions to scrutinize dynasties periodization as a translingual practice. It will argue that Sinitic efforts to periodize were linear and progressive, not cyclical; always discursive rather than canonical; and that the list of so-called “Chinese dynasties” changed with political winds and trends in historical philosophy.