Defining Han Identity in Chinese Ethnology and Archaeology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MAKING THE MAJORITY: DEFINING HAN IDENTITY IN CHINESE ETHNOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY By Clayton D. Brown BA, Utah State University, 1999 MA, Utah State University, 2001 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. in History University of Pittsburgh 2008 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Clayton D. Brown It was defended on March 20, 2008 and approved by Evelyn Rawski, Professor, History Department Nicole Constable, Professor, Anthropology Department Richard Smethurst, Professor, History Department Anthony Barbieri-Low, Assistant Professor, History Department Dissertation Director: Evelyn Rawski, Professor, History Department ii Copyright © by Clayton D. Brown 2008 iii MAKING THE MAJORITY: DEFINING HAN IDENTITY IN CHINESE ETHNOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY Clayton D. Brown, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2008 According to the People’s Republic of China, fifty-six ethnic groups combine to form the Chinese nation although the Han, at over ninety percent of the population, constitute China’s overwhelming majority. Their numbers now exceed one billion, the largest ethnic group on earth and twenty percent of the world’s population. My dissertation project, entitled “Making the Majority: Defining Han Identity in Chinese Ethnology and Archaeology,” challenges the putative authenticity of this official category by critically examining its creation and evolution in the modern period. In the early twentieth century anthropology became instrumental in defining the Chinese as a people and composing China’s national narrative, or what Benedict Anderson calls the “biography of the nation.” While archaeologists searched for Chinese racial and cultural origins in the Yellow River valley of the Central Plain, ethnologists studied non-Han minorities in the rugged and remote frontiers. These scholars linked contemporary minorities to ethnonyms from classical texts, thus imposing on them a legacy of barbarism while Han assumed the role of ethnic Chinese, heirs of historic Chinese civilization, and the heart of the modern Chinese nation. Over the course of the past century social changes and political expediency necessitated revisions of the Han narrative, and popular conceptions evolved accordingly. Today the various Chinese political communities of Taiwan, Hong iv Kong, Macao, and the PRC all perceive the Han differently, reflecting their divergent visions of the Chinese nation. On the whole, examining interpretations and representations of Han identity across heuristic and spatial boundaries shows that the concept of Han is in fact fluid, evolving, and ultimately political. This study concludes that Han, like “white” or Caucasian in the US, represents an imagined majority—a social construct that continues to inform the negotiation of Chinese identities. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ……………………………………………………………………………… vii I. INTRODUCTION: HAN AS CHINA’S WHITE …………………………….… 1 II. ARCHAEOLOGY: THE SHANG DYNASTY AS HAN HERITAGE, 1923- 1930 …………………………………………………………………………….. 18 III. ETHNOLOGY: FRONTIER STUDIES AND CHINA’S OTHER, 1926-1945 . 56 IV. LI CHI AND EVOLVING NARRATIVES OF THE CHINESE RACE, 1950- 1977 …………………………………………………………………………….. 91 V. FEI XIAOTONG AND THE CHINESE SNOWBALL: OFFICIAL NARRATIVES OF HAN AND THE CHINESE NATION IN THE PRC AND BEYOND, 1950-2007 ……………………………………………………..….. 123 VI. FRACTURED NARRATIVE: POPULAR CONCEPTIONS OF HAN, 2004- 2008 ………………………………………………………………………….... 155 VII. CONCLUSION: DISAPPEARANCE OF THE HAN ……………………….. 183 BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………….…………. 190 vi PREFACE It seems that in challenging Han identity I have taken on the role of the foolish old man from Chinese folklore who, armed only with a shovel, dedicated himself to the Sisyphean task of removing the mountain. Certainly this present work offers little more than a miniscule effort—a metaphorical shovelful—but hopefully one that in conjunction with the efforts of others will accomplish something great. In any case, it is not an individual effort, either for the old man, who succeeded with the help of his progeny, or for me. I am profoundly indebted to a number of individuals and institutions for their assistance with this study. At the University of Pittsburgh I have enjoyed the very good fortune of working with a committee that has both encouraged independent work and creativity while providing inspiration and much needed guidance for the project. My thanks especially to Evelyn Rawski for conceding to take me on as a doctoral student, and to Nicole Constable, Tony Barbieri-Low and Dick Smethurst for investing themselves in a naïve graduate student’s overly ambitious project. I am certain that the diversity of interests and backgrounds among committee members greatly enriched the study. Even so, the final product is my own, including the inevitable errors. I have also been fortunate to work with Hsu Cho-yun, professor emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh and senior fellow of the Academia Sinica in Taiwan, who proved to be an important connection with the past. Other senior scholars at the Academia Sinica, including Li Yih-yuan and Wang Fan-sen, as well as staff at the Institute of History and Philology and the Archaeology Section, provided access to relevant archives and other vii rare materials. My thanks also to Huang Ying-kuei and Guo Peiyi at the Institute of Ethnology for affiliation and other assistance. In Beijing, a number of individuals at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, including He Xingliang and Du Rongkun of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology and Chen Xingcan of the Institute of Archaeology, shared their insights and experiences, as did Wang Qingren and Wang Jianmin of the Central University for Nationalities. Additionally I am grateful to Li Guangmo and Zou Heng for their exceptional hospitality and willingness to reminisce. In Guangzhou I appreciated working briefly with the Anthropology Department faculty of Zhongshan University, and particularly Liu Wensuo with whom I have been able to continue collaboration. My thanks also to the Xiamen University Anthropological Research Institute and the Smithsonian Institution archives each for hosting me on short visits. I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge the many generous sources of research funding, beginning with the University of Pittsburgh Department of History, the University Center for International Studies, and the China Council. The project was also supported by Title VI funding from the Department of Education, the Fulbright program, the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, the National Security Education Program, the American Historical Association, and the American Council of Learned Societies. Discrete portions of the dissertation were presented at conferences hosted by Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Concordia Universities as well as at annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association and the American Historical Association, all of which aided me in vastly improving the manuscript. viii Li Yi-tze, currently a doctoral candidate in the Anthropology Department at Pitt, exercised great patience in explicating handwritten archive documents on abstruse academic topics and I hope my attempts at reciprocation did him some service. Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to Ian and Anya, without whom I would have finished in half the time. I have no regrets. Clayton D. Brown Pittsburgh 4/ 21/08 ix INTRODUCTION: HAN AS CHINA’S WHITE According to the People’s Republic of China, fifty-six ethnic groups unite to form the prodigious Chinese nation. Within this diverse mix, however, the Han constitute an overwhelming majority, with 91.96 percent of the population. The number of Han now exceeds one billion, or twenty percent of the world population, making Han the largest ethnic group not only in China but on the face of the earth.1 A diminutive Western analogue is found in the category White or Caucasian. According to the latest figures from the United States Census Bureau, exactly 211,460,626 people fall within the racial category “White,” making this the official US majority at 75.1 percent of the overall national population.2 Both Han and White share the dubious distinction of being the majority within their respective sphere, but ironically they also share an obscurity wholly incongruous with their numbers. While racial and ethnic studies have tended to focus narrowly on minorities, only recently has the monolithic, undefined majority become a viable subject for critical analysis. Critical Race Theory and Critical White Studies Precise demographic statistics like those cited above imply that race and ethnicity are objective and quantifiable, yet social critics have recently drawn attention to what 1 White Papers of the Chinese Government (Beijing: Foreign Language Press, 2000), 450. 2 This census was taken in 2000, the same year as the PRC census. See US Census Bureau statistics online at http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf. 1 Benedict Anderson called “the fiction of the census.”3 Michel Foucault has reminded us that our classificatory schemes are neither timeless nor natural; they are, in fact, created.4 Likewise, Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu both discussed how such “practical taxonomies,” in imposing order on the world, offer a means of exercising power.5 By tracing the histories of these established taxonomies, we may discover how and when categories were first created and, most importantly,