Journal of chinese humanities 6 (2020) 129-152 brill.com/joch Dispelling the Myth of the “Tang-Song Transition Theory” Yang Jiping 楊際平 Professor of Department of History, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China
[email protected] Abstract Administrative statutes in the Tang clearly recognized that the fields of commoners could be held through private ownership. Field ownership structures in the recently restored Tang Statutes, while seeming to support ideas of land nationalization, did not actually change the private landowning practices that had been in place since the Qin and the Han dynasties. Numerous tenancy contracts unearthed in Dunhuang and Turfan dating back to the Tang and Five Dynasties show ample evidence that, prior to the establishment of the double-tax system in 780, a highly developed system of contract tenancy was already in place. Tenancy was clearly the leading form of agricul- tural production outside subsistence farming. This proves that the labor force during the Sui and Tang dynasties consisted not of “slaves and tenant farmers” or “agricultural dependents and serfs” but of commoners who were legally free. The Sui, Tang, and Five Dynasties, as described by Japanese historian Naitō Konan, bear no resemblance to the historical reality of this period. In many instances, Naitō’s arguments have dis- torted the history of these dynasties in an effort to make China’s history fit neatly into the framework of medieval European history. Consequently, his premises, arguments, and his central conclusion are all wrong. It is crucial that we dispel the myth of Naitō’s “Tang-Song transition theory” and return to historical reality.