sign in sign up
<<
Home , Lingnan, Minyue, Nanyue, Yue (state)

262 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2017 • 56(2)

Pierre-Yves Manguin, Aiyavu Mani,and SHARROCK,PETER D. Geoffrey Wade. Singapore: ISEAS 2012 Serpents and Buddhas, in Connecting Publishing. Empires and States: Selected Papers from the th MURPHY,STEPHEN A., AND MIRIAM T. S TARK 13 International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian 2016 Introduction: Transitions from late – prehistory to early historic periods in Archaeologists: 118 126, ed. Mai Lin Mainland Southeast , c. early to Tjoa-Bonatz, Andreas Reinecke, and mid-first millennium C.. Journal of Dominik Bonatz. Singapore: NUS Southeast Asian Studies 47(3):333–340. Press.

SHARROCK,PETER D. SMITH,RALPH BERNARD, AND WILLIAM WATSON, 2009 Garuda, Vajrapāni and religious change EDS. in Jayavarman VII’s Angkor. Journal of 1979 Early South East Asia: Essays in Archae- Southeast Asian Studies 40(1):111–151. ology, History, and Historical Geography. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ancient and the : Perceptions and Identities on the Southern Frontier, c. 400 B.C.E.–50 C.E. Erica Brindley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. 302 pp, 12 b/w illustrations, 3 maps, 3 tables, Bibliography, Index. US $103.00. ISBN 9781316355282.

Reviewed by Francis ALLARD, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

It is fair to say that substantially more has been part of the empire, while troops written about China’s northern neighbors in dispatched one century later by the pre- and early imperial times than about its Wudi are said to have taken no more early southern populations. This is perhaps than 3 years to reach and conquer a vast swath not surprising, considering the perpetual need of territory covering present-day of Age and later dynasties to monitor, (along the southeast coast), , northern engage, and appease those powerful and and central , and portions of mobile steppe polities that agitated at their (in southwest China), all of which were soon doorstep. In contrast, not only was the south partitioned into commanderies and constitu- geographically distant from the dynastic ent counties. centers of the Central Plains, it never emerged Viewed from a comfortable historical as a serious military threat. Textual, archae- distance, these early southern campaigns take ological, and linguistic data combine to paint on the appearance of effortless expansion China’s vast southern region (from the Yangzi which laid the foundation for the subsequent River to ) as a highly political integration and sinicization of segmented ethnic landscape populated by China’s southern populations. In reality, mostly small-scale, pre-literate populations however, the process of military, adminis- who spoke non-sinitic languages. The trative, and cultural incorporation was also absence of any coordinated resistance to – marked by serious challenges. Contemporary or possibly even awareness of – the southern and later texts refer to regular and occasionally march of armies is evident from the recorded successful native uprisings, as well as debates at speed at which China’s early empires managed court regarding the wisdom of administering to incorporate the southern regions into their and holding on to such distant regions. Still, realms. Thus, by 214 B.C.E., Lingnan (con- even as historical studies of the south have sisting of present-day and incorporated into their narratives details of ) in southeast China had become these setbacks and the tasks faced by imperial BOOK REVIEWS 263 officials and military personnel, meta- developmental trajectories, some of these accounts of China’s enlargement south of leading to socio-politically complex societies. the Yangzi have viewed the expansion Erica Brindley’s Ancient China and the Yue: primarily as an inevitable sinicization process, Perceptions and Identities on the Southern Frontier, the outcome of which was achieved through c. 400 B.C.E–50 C.E. stands as a valuable the gradual but insistent replacement of native addition to the existing scholarship on the political and cultural forms. Thus, while early topic of China’s early southern populations. western accounts of the expansion – most Importantly, and in contrast to the prepon- notably Herold Wiens’ (1954) China’s March derance of locally-focused studies, she tackles Toward the Tropics and C.P. FitzGerald’s (1972) the whole of southern China. While a portion The Southern Expansion of the Chinese People – of the book is devoted to discussing the differ in regard to the manner in which native relevant linguistic context and reviewing the society was altered through sustained contact results of archaeological work carried out in with Chinese soldiers, officials, traders, and the region, the main thrust of Brindley’s study colonists, they remain consistent in their remains a critical consideration of the “Yu e,” adherence to the fundamental assumptions of an appellation which scholars of early China the sinicization model. have at least passing familiarity with, but The view of early China’s southern region which few have attempted to define with any as an uneven ethnospace whose weak con- historical or geographical rigor. As Brindley stituent populations were irreversibly drawn demonstrates, the Yue label stands as both an into the Chinese political and cultural sphere authentic designation of peoples, albeit one of is now tempered by research conducted on frustratingly poor resolution, as well as a more recent periods by western historians and conceptual foil against which processes of anthropologists. This scholarship – much of it identity formation and maintenance played focused on ethnic groups located in southwest out among the “-xia,” here identified as China – offers a more critical assessment of the inhabitants of Central Plains polities China’s infiltration of native territories by whose self-defined distinctiveness was closely calling attention to the crucial fact that native tied to cultural descent from dynastic ances- acculturation to Chinese customs and views tors and set against the culture of less civilized remained very much incomplete as recently as near and distant neighbors. a few hundred years ago in some peripheral Who were the so-called Yue? The term areas. Beyond the obvious relevance of such was ascribed by Hua-xia writers to pre-literate findings to discussions of earlier periods, populations said to have inhabited much of these studies also highlight the reality that coastal southern China and northern Vietnam military, administrative, and cultural borders both before China’s expansionary push and were likely never coterminous. These recent following the incorporation of these regions studies rely on a number of ideas (i.e., into the Qin and Han realms. Scattered across resistance, identity, acculturation, hybridiza- texts dating from the mid-first millennium tion, agency) developed by Western scholars B.C.E. (late Spring and Autumn, early Warring interested in the fate of peripheral populations States periods) to the first centuries C.E. that have been impacted by imperial expan- (Eastern ), references to the Yue sion or touched by economic and cultural leave no doubt about the cultural hetero- currents flowing from the center prior to the geneity of its constituent peoples and their arrival of imperial agents. Finally, and in association with southern regions. More parallel with such approaches, archaeological specifically, the Yue label was used to identify research in southern China over the past half a wide range of ethnic groups and polities (or century has revealed – beyond a few notable groups said to have had historical or instances of correspondence between texts genealogical links with the Yue). Alongside and recovered materials – the existence of the more inclusive Bai-yue (“Hundred Yue,” significant cultural diversity within south first mentioned in 239 B.C.E.), these included a China (both before and following imperial number of populations ranging in scale from expansion) and identified locally distinctive geographically constrained ethnic groups to 264 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2017 • 56(2) larger kingdoms and states, including the Yu- beasts” (p. 128), with “the young order[ing] yue, Gan-yue, Dong-, Dong-yue, - about their elders [and] the elderly fear[ing] yue, -yue, -ou, Luo-luo, Yue, , the able-bodied” (p. 128); as having little yin, Nan-yue, and Min-yue. much yang, and thin skin (akin to the thin furs Despite the many textual references to the of local birds and animals), giving them the Yue, the term is marked by limited historical, ability to withstand heat; as fierce individuals temporal, and geographic specificity. It comes prone to shifting military allegiances; as into clearer focus only in the case of those few proficient swimmers, naval warriors, and southern polities whose size, resilience, and sword makers; as worshippers of snakes; and actions merited more extensive treatment by as people who exhibited other unusual and early historians. Beyond the fact that we do unrefined non-Hua-xia customs, such as not know what the southern Yue groups wearing one’s hair unbound (loose), sheared, called themselves and how or whether they or formed into a mallet-shaped bun, tattooing consciously distinguished themselves from the body and “engraving the forehead” one another, the label was itself inconsistently (p. 167), and sitting “in the dustpan style” applied by Chinese authors for reasons that are (i.e., sitting with buttocks on the ground and not immediately apparent to us. Still, the texts legs stretched out or bent) (p. 141). do provide some points of reference. For As many have remarked, descriptions of the example, references to the Xi-ou and Luo-luo Yue by Hua-xia writers often present south- (jointly known as Ou-luo) appear to speak of erners in a negative light. Such comments – for populations centered in western/southern example the above statement indicating that Guangxi or northern Vietnam. The compara- Yue youngsters abused their elders and there- tively derogatory term Man-yi (“aliens from fore lacked filial piety – are in fact best seen in the southern direction”) likely referred to a relation to the ethnocentric tenets of a more extensive area encompassing southeast, Confucian orthodoxy which contrasted the central, and southwest China (including the cultured and superior Hua-xia to the perceived territories of the , , and ) than that barbarians living at and beyond the margins, covered by the label Bai-yue, who occupied the untouched by the civilizing currents which southeast coastal areas. Brindley devotes a guided the lives of those claiming Hua-xia significant portion of the book to introducing a cultural descent. Without denying the exis- numberofYueorYue-related polities:thestates tence or importance of such observations, of Yue and Wu centered in and however, Brindley providesa multi-faceted and ; the kingdoms of Min-yue, Dong- in the end more interesting analysis of ou, and Dong-yue in Fujian; and the kingdom references to the Yue. She points out, for of Nan-yue in Lingnan. Much more is known example, that not all Hua-xia writers deni- of these polities, with references providing grated the Yue; some of their descriptions and specific information about the actions and comments are best viewed as non-judgmental, motives of named personages, the march of and in some cases even positive, assessments of political and military successes and reversals, as their southern neighbors. well as the friendly and adversarial relations that Brindley also questions the specificity of tied these southern polities to one another and such “tropes of the savage” (p. 141), some of to the Han court. which were applied liberally to non-Hua-xia Given the absence of recorded self- groups regardless of location or ethnic representations among China’s early southern identification, a view that tallies with the populations, even among the better known likelihood that Hua-xia writers (especially Yue kingdoms, one can understand the wish those living during the ) to extract from scattered references informa- had limited knowledge of southerners and tion about the physical appearance, behavior, their customs. In support of this view, she and mindset of southerners. The Yue, or devotes Chapter 6 to discussing the above- specific subgroups of the Yue, are variously mentioned customs of tattooing, sitting in described as “stupid, sickly, and filthy” “the dustpan style,” and wearing one’s hair (p. 133); as behaving “like deer, birds, and loose, sheared, or in a mallet-shaped bun, BOOK REVIEWS 265 pointing out that these practices were also the Yue and the Central States (e.g., the mentioned in relation to other non-Hua-xia universal existence of political corruption and populations (except perhaps for the combined the natural wish of people everywhere to customs of sheared hair and tattooed bodies, please their leaders). Finally, a number of which appear to have been more closely tied to references express disapproval of the Hua-xia theYue than to other groups). In any case, as she through their praise of the Yue “other.” Thus, argues, the strong likelihood of significant we read that the Yue and Hu were more likely cultural variation among the numerous Yue to cooperate with one another than were the groups which inhabited China’s southern Qin among themselves, and that, although regions should temper text-based attempts to admittedly uncouth, people from the far south isolate traits which apply to the entire Yue lived in harmony with the (Way) and cultural and political realm. should therefore be emulated. As Brindley A core idea explored by Brindley is that reminds us, however, even as they offer while descriptions such as those discussed positive assessments of the Yue, the above above allowed – even when unsupported by references must still be viewed within the evidence – the Hua-xia to paint themselves as context of a Hua-xia centered worldview unambiguously superior to non-Hua-xia dependent on comparison with the peripheral peoples, authors also sometimes presented Yue other. milder views of the Yue. Some references As one proceeds through Ancient China and relativized or rationalized the customs of the Yue, one quickly recognizes that Brindley southern populations, while others even is tackling two separate but related topics: the served as veiled self-criticisms of the Hua- Yue and early southern China. As discussed xia. For example, a form of environmental earlier in regard to the former, the book relies determinism appears to emerge during the on early texts to convey information about the Han dynasty, by which time the empire had Yue and comment on the construction of become more familiar with, and intent on, Hua-xia identity from the perspective of the systematically recording and classifying its relevant references. Perhaps not surprisingly, southern populations. Thus, one previously considering Brindley’s training as a historian, mentioned reference associates Min-yue much of her analysis is devoted to exploring ferocity with the fact that “the lands of these issues. Her clearly laid out sources and Eastern Yue are narrow and full obstructions,” well-argued interpretations serve as a warning while another states that Yue people are to researchers not to assume single motives “stupid, sickly, and filthy” because “the water when examining Hua-xia references to in Yue is muddy, heavy, and easily floods” marginal populations. They also illustrate (p. 133). In somewhat the same taxonomic how references of this type can be used more vein, Han dynasty writers such as constructively to speak about the writers were more likely to define ethnicity in themselves. While the book admittedly does relation to a fixed (but not necessarily little to resurrect “Yu e ” from its present status verifiable) ancestral lineage than to a Con- as a fluid label standing for various poorly- fucian sense of inherited cultural descent open understood peoples, this stems from the reality to the possibility that a civilized mindset and of a limited and biased textual record rather comportment can be learned through proper from any shortcomings in Brindley’s cultural exposure and resolve. approach. Brindley reviews a number of other non- Independent of her study of textual derogatory references to Yue behavior, some references to the Yue, Brindley devotes two of which are best viewed as neutral or chapters to what linguistics and archaeology universalizing. One author explains that can tell us about early southern China. The people in the state of Yue do not wear complex linguistic landscape of present-day “ceremonial hats” for no apparent reason southern China is informative. Aside from the other than that they follow different customs many varieties of Chinese now spoken (including wearing their hair short). Others throughout the entire region, major language point to a number of equivalences between groups include Tai-kadai, Hmong-mien (or 266 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES • 2017 • 56(2)

Miao-Yao), and a small number of Austro- resolution depiction of southern China Asiatic (AA) languages. The majority of these during the pre- and early imperial periods.1 are spoken in southwestern and south-central At various points throughout the book, she China (i.e., not in coastal southeast China). discusses the history of southern states and Brindley devotes Chapter 2 to the region’s kingdoms (i.e., Yue, Wu, , ) linguistic landscape. While it is generally and offers brief descriptions of some of their agreed that pre-imperial southern populations relevant sites and burials. Chapter 3, which spoke non-sinitic languages, there remains focuses entirely on the region’s archaeological significant disagreement among historical record prior to the emergence of these linguists about their taxonomic identification polities, reviews some of the better known and geographical extent. These debates are archaeological cultures and sites that played a grounded in the realities that language groups role in local developmental sequences. expand and contract over time and that they Although uneven and by necessity incom- regularly borrow from one another. For plete, Brindley’s account of southern China’s example, it is likely that forms of pre- or archaeological landscape does allow her to proto-Austronesian (AN) languages, which recognize – as others have – the significant are known to have been spoken in Taiwan amount of cultural diversity that marked prior to their expansion from the island to the region during the pre-imperial period. and the Pacific, were spoken The high level of diversity revealed by the along China’s southeastern coast (where they archaeological record also precludes attempts would have originated). The proposal that at defining the Yue, or any Yue subgroup for Tai-kadai may be an off-shoot of proto-AA that matter, in terms of specific material and offers the additional possibility that these behavioral attributes. As discussed earlier, not language groups may have been spoken over only do we remain unable to pinpoint the much of southern China. Other models put spatial extent of any one Yue group on the forward by linguists point to the greater basis of historical references, it is now well- geographical coverage of Hmong-mien and established that archaeological cultures cannot AA, the latter possibly sharing an “Austric” be blindly equated with ethnic groups, a fact ancestral base with AN languages. that Brindley also wisely acknowledges. Regardless of which of the above linguistic Not addressed in the book’s archaeology models best represents reality, I agree with chapter is a discussion of how western- Brindley that Hua-xia imposed ethnonyms inspired theoretical models have been applied were likely not based on the recognition of to the region’s existing archaeological record. linguistic categories (for example identifying Developed from cross-cultural research, such “Bai-yue” as speakers of proto-AN languages), models can help us better understand the since “Hua-xia authors . . . may not have workings of localized social systems and chart noticed or been aware of significant linguistic the development of socio-political complex- differences among groups that inhabited the ity over time. Importantly, this type of Southland” (p. 60). In summary, the early research is not intended (or expected) to linguistic landscape of southern China remains result in a better understanding of the spatial poorly understood, with research at this point and temporal parameters of the textually providing no more than a broad outline of defined Yue. Instead, archaeological remains possible languages spoken by populations living such as burials – of which many are now in different areas of the region. Having said this, known in the region – permit us to consider it is important to note that theworkof historical how both indirect contact with northern areas linguists remains essential, particularly as it and the later arrival of imperial agents holds the potential to generate data on impacted developments at the local level. population movements, interactions among No less pertinent, archaeologists now routi- speakers of different languages, and details of nely use material culture and site patterning how and where those speakers lived. data to comment on processes and responses Of the methods and approaches discussed such as acculturation, resistance, accommoda- by Brindley, archaeology offers the highest tion, and hybridization. Such approaches, one BOOK REVIEWS 267 can argue, will remain crucial in guiding REFERENCES CITED future advances in our understanding of early southern China, while also giving voice to the FITZGERALD,C.P. hitherto silent and enigmatic Yue that 1972 The Southern Expansion of the Chinese People. New York: Praeger. populated China’s early texts. WIENS,HEROLD J. 1954 China’s March Toward the Tropics: A Discussion of the Southward Penetration of NOTES China’s Culture, Peoples, and Political Control in Relation to the Non-Han- 1. In the spirit of full disclosure, I provided Chinese Peoples of and in the assistance to Erica Brindley when she was Perspective of Historical and Cultural writing the chapter on the archaeology of Geography. Hamden, CT: Shoe String southern China. Press.