JWSR v5n3 - David Wilkinson

Journal of World-Systems Research, Vol V, 3, 1999, 501-617
ISSN 1076-156X
© 1999 David Wilkinson.

Power polarity in the Far Eastern macrosocial system is assessed at twenty-five year intervals 1050 BC--AD 1850. Consistent with analysis of Indic system data, there is no support for the theory that the normal world-system power configuration is multipolar, hegemonic, or universal-empire. Instead, several different "stability epochs" are discerned.

This study provides some of the first systematic long-term data on the evolution of the political structure of the Far Eastern world system, based on a range of valid and reliable archaeological and historical sources. It is part of an ongoing attempt to expand the space-time horizon of such disciplines as international relations and world systems research, and to heighten the attention to empirical data of the more humanistic discipline of civilizational studies.

This is one in a series of articles and papers exploring various aspects of very large scale social systems from an empirical, comparative-historical perspective. To denote its unit of analysis, it uses the terms "civilization," "world system," or "macrosocial system" more or less interchangeably. "Civilization" is historically prior; "world system" is more familiar to readers of this journal; the author has argued that these terms properly denote the same set of entities (Wilkinson, 1995a). "Macrosocial system," a more recent coinage, is the most neutral across the social sciences, but thus far commands only a small constituency. The use of all three terms is intended as a reminder that there are important literatures whose relevance should not be lost on account of terminological exclusivity.

The author is not alone in pursuing the empirical study of macrosocial systems. Toynbee (Table V, 1946) attempted to chart epochs of "Times of Troubles" and "Universal Empire" in civilizations. More recently, related contributions have been made by Algaze (1993), Blanton and Feinman (1984), Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997), Cioffi-Revilla (1996), Cioffi-Revilla and Lai (1995), Feinman and Marcus (1998), Midlarsky (1988), Modelski (1987), Peregrine (1992), Quigley (1961), Rasler and Thompson (1994), Thompson (1988, 1999), Willey (1991), and Yoffee and Cowgill (1988) among others.

This paper, like its immediate predecessors, directs itself to assessing the polarity, or systemwide power structure, of one such system, the Far Eastern (East Asian), over some three thousand years. This paper continues an attempt to increase the coding resolution, from 100 year intervals (Wilkinson, 1997) to 50-year intervals (1999a) to the current 25-year intervals.

Previous papers in this series (Wilkinson 1980-82, 1987a, 1993-1994) have addressed the question of the definition and roster of very large-scale very long-lived social systems. The criteria there proposed involve (1) a minimum settlement size-level of 10,000 in at least one city (thus Chaco Canyon in the U.S. Southwest, with a size of "perhaps 3000"--Lekson 1999: 68--falls short) and (2) an "individuating" criterion (a historically-autonomous political-military-diplomatic transactional network, not part of a larger such network).

The list of entities that certainly, very probably or probably met both the size-level and the individuating criteria is itself necessarily a work in progress, as smaller and more obscured systems slowly emerge out of the fog (whether real or in the mind of the observer). The following list is current, and adds one "probable" (Omotic civilization) to the last update (Wilkinson, 1993-1994) of a list begun much earlier (Wilkinson, 1980-1982). Macrosocial systems already generally recognized are simply named; others are briefly noticed. The order in which the systems are listed reflects the approximate order of each one's absorption into the Central world system.

Formed in the near east by the expansion, collision (in Syria and Anatolia) and fusion of Egyptian and Mesopotamian world systems. Continued to expand, and in due course engulfed, approximately in this order, all the other previously autonomous civilizations whether great or small: the Aegean, Irish, Mesoamerican, Andean, Chibchan, West Central African, West African, East African, Indonesian, Indic, Far Eastern, Japanese, African Great Lakes, and Omotic world systems.

Central civilization probably included or includes, as regions or epochs, the whole history of the following entities often labeled "civilizations" on the taxonomically inadequate basis of their genuine cultural distinctness: Persian, Classical, Medieval, Byzantine, Russian, Western. Central civilization may reasonably be said to have had five phases: Near Eastern (c. 1500–300 BC); Greco–Roman (c. 300 BC–c. 500 AD); Medieval (a time designation, c. 500–c. 1500 AD, intended to include Catholic, Orthodox and Islamic cultures within Central civilization); Western (c. 1500–c. 1940 AD); and Global (c. 1940 AD to date). Greco–Roman and Western phases were characterized by a greater dominance of one geographic area and one cultural tradition within the Central complex than the Near Eastern, Medieval and Global phases.

4. Aegean (Minoan-Mycenean-Hellenic).
5. Irish. Its maximum area was approximately that of contemporary Ireland. Cities began after, probably well after, 5th century AD. Engulfed by Central civilization until the Norman–English invasions of the 12th century.

6. Indonesian. Its maximum area included contemporary western Indonesia, Malaya, and (perhaps as a shared semiperiphery with Far Eastern) some of coastal Vietnam. Engulfed by Central civilization via Portuguese, British and Dutch invasions after 1511.

Page 503

Journal of World-Systems Research

        7. Mesoamerican or Mexican.
        8. Andean or Peruvian.
        9. Chibchan. Highlands of Colombia. Possibly, even probably independent and very early in its evolution when engulfed by Central civilization in the person of Spanish conquistadors of the 16th century.

10. East African (Coastal/Swahili). Extant, 14th to 15th century AD, possibly citified since 12th century or even earlier. Engulfed by Central civilization (Portuguese, Ottomans) from the 16th century.

11. West Central African (Kongo/Tio). Extant, 15th century AD, possibly earlier. Engulfed by Central civilization (Portuguese) early 16th century.

12. West African (Western Sudanic). An autonomous civilization from at least the 8th century AD, perhaps 4th or 6th (Ghana); engulfed by Central civilization (Morocco) in the 16th century.

13. Indic or South Asian.
14. Mississippian. Centers at Cahokia (Illinois), Macon (Georgia), Moundville (Alabama), Etowah (Georgia), Spiro Mound (Oklahoma), and Aztalan (Wisconsin). Never incorporated into the Central world system; collapsed before AD 1700, after about 1000 years as a world system, perhaps as a result of depopulating plagues, perhaps in turn forerunning European explorers.

15. Japanese world system. At its greatest extent coterminous with contemporary Japan. Budded off Far Eastern system mid 1st millennium AD; engulfed by Central civilization during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

16. African Great Lakes world system. Probably a world system, late 17th to late 19th century, when engulfed by Central; possibly such earlier.

17. Omotic world system. Southwestern area of current Ethiopia. Probably isolated and autonomous 18th, perhaps 15th, to 19th centuries AD; much missing data. Incorporated into the Central world system by Abyssinian conquest (Ethiopian state formation) in last decade of the 19th century.

18. Far Eastern world system. This system, the subject of the current paper, began when a polyculture in the Yellow River basin produced one and then many cities over 3000 years ago. This expanding civilization, with its polity of states, hegemonies and empires, probably soon collided and fused with another, begun in the upper Yangtze basin perhaps even earlier. Continuing to grow outward, it early began to interact regularly tradewise with other macrosocial systems (Central and Indic) to form a larger oikumene (tradenet). At its greatest extent the Far Eastern system included contemporary China, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, Mongolia, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and also early Japan. The Far Eastern network was absorbed through war and diplomacy into Central civilization in the late 19th and/or early 20th centuries, between the First Opium War and the First World War. Before that time, it went through a long sequence of changes in macropolitical structure.

A recent paper in this sequence (1996a) attempted to extract a long–term sequence of macropolitical configurations for Indic civilization from an independent macropolitical data source, the monumental Historical Atlas of South Asia, edited by Joseph E. Schwartzberg, which provides a remarkable amount of information upon the political trajectory of Indic civilization from 560 BC.

It was possible to use Schwartzberg's atlas to produce a series of data for the power configurations of the Indic system, using the following categories:

        Universal State/Empire
        Hegemonic
        Unipolar (non-hegemonic, "unipolarity without hegemony")
        Bipolar
        Tripolar
        Multipolar
        Nonpolar

The coding concepts of, and distinction between, hegemony and (non-hegemonic) unipolarity are discussed at greater length elsewhere (Wilkinson, 1994a, 1994b, 1999b); the other codings reflect well-known systemic concepts. In brief, these categories cut the continuum of possible degrees of centralization of state power configurations in a macrosocial system, or world system, or civilization, as follows:

This coding scheme for power concentration is certainly nominal; it may also be ordinal. However, more dimensions than one may be involved, or the ordinal topology may be nonlinear: configurations herein labeled both "hegemonic" and "nonpolar" are sometimes thought by other writers to be "feudal."

The Far Eastern world system may have existed at the time of, and with a core state from, the semilegendary Hsia (Xia) dynasty. (The traditional Wade-Giles transliteration system is used herein, except in a few instances in which a more recent pinyin transliteration would reduce, not increase, the confusion and pronunciation errors of an ordinary reader.) A walled city a mile square near present Zhengzhou may have been the Hsia capital Yangcheng, and large walled Lungshan-culture towns may have been Hsia subcenters. But because of fundamental historical and archaeological disagreements, little can be said of configurations in the Far Eastern world system before the triad of Hsia, Shang and Chou, often treated as a succession of dynasties in a single state, but by Chang (1980:348-355) argued to be three states, respectively to the center, east and west of the Central Plain of the Yellow River, arising and succeeding one another in that order and in power primacy.

Furthermore, we omit the Hsia "era" as essentially not yet datable (Chang, 1986: 306; Murphey, 1996:33, suggests 2000-1600 BC, Chang, 1983: 512, 2200-1750 BC), nor classifiable as to polarity-configuration. The most frequent coding would likely be hegemonic, but there would have been a period of bipolarity in the transition to Shang (cf. Chang 512-513). An area of perhaps 350 X 450 miles, mainly in the middle Yellow River basin, could speculatively be assigned to the entire Far Eastern system during the alleged Hsia period. (See Herrmann 2; Wheatley's comment, xiii; Penkala 8)

The Shang era which supposedly followed Hsia is also omitted, as not yet firmly datable nor classifiable at most particular moments. (Chang, 1983:512-514, proposes 1750-1100 BC--cf. Chang, 1980:322-329--and his description, like that of Keightley, 1983, seems to leave a choice between hegemony or unipolarity without hegemony.) The system's boundaries were now more likely 500 X 500 miles, with extensions into parts of the Huai and Yangtze basins. (See Herrmann 3-4, and Wheatley's comment, xiii-xiv; Penkala 10; Blunden and Elvin 54-55)

Late Shang does seems to have been clearly hegemonic, with Shang ascendancy over a multicultural system in the lower and middle Yellow River basin which contained the Shang royal domain (the bureaucratic core empire), vassal states, friendly states, independent states, and hostile states. (Hsu and Linduff 20-25, 145; see map, Blunden and Elvin, 34-35, and Keightley, 538) Yin, the final Shang capital near Anyang, "may have covered at its peak as much as 10 square miles" (Murphey, 34), implying fairly widespread and massive extractions by the militaristic slaver aristocracy of Shang. Chao Lin notes a move in finds that late Shang was in the process of moving "from a state confederacy toward an empire" by conquering small states, establishing overlordship, and transforming vassal states into Shang administrative districts. (93-105, 129)

Toward the end of Shang's prominence, Chou (possibly proto-Tibeto-Burmans, "Ch'iang" or "Jung": Pulleyblank, 460) slowly arose out of a weak, distant and intermittent vassalhood (Keightley, 529-532) to become a strong and growing state, variously imitating, resisting, fighting, or submitting to Shang. (Hsu and Linduff 45-49) This would have entailed a bipolar transition period; this was followed by a period of Chou hegemony.

Chou chronology remains extremely unsettled before 841 BC, with problems that are numerous, complex, and highly specialized, with all dates subject to significant future alterations. The "Western Chou" era may have lasted 250 or more than 300 years: while 771 BC is the generally accepted ending date, conflicting recent chronologies begin it 1122, 1100, 1087, 1050, or 1027 or 1025 BC. (Hsu and Linduff 390; Ebrey 23, 30; Blunden and Elvin 55; Huang 15; Murphey 35; Bodde, 1986:21; Shaughnessy, xix) From 1025, however, coding becomes plausible, because Chou was by then established as a hegemony, and apparently remained hegemonic to 841. We shall use Shaughnessy's dates for the Chou reigns (which are mentioned because much Chou material is organized by reign).

In Chou's ascent to primacy it is recorded as having destroyed 99 "states" and subjugated 652; but these were probably statelets, clusters of villages. (Hsu and Linduff, 113) Chou then set up a system of governance usually styled "feudal," but effectively hegemonic, in the Yellow River basin. The early geography of the Chou-centered world-system did not much alter that of its Shang-centered predecessor: the Huai, Han and Yangtze basins remained outside the system. (Hsu and Linduff 127-128)

1025 BC. Hegemonic. Hegemon: Chou. (King Ch'eng: Shaughnessy, xix; but cf. Hsu and Linduff, 387-390)

King Ch'eng established many new "states" in the Yellow River basin. Chou, as foreign conquerors, planted many new garrison and colonial fortress-cities to control new territorial states containing both Shang remnants and the numerous non Hua-Hsia peoples Shang had conquered but not incorporated. (Eberhard, 1952, 4, 6, 66-68; Hsu and Linduff 127-128, 158-163, 187-189, 224, 269, 379)

Eberhard emphasizes the polycultural character of the Chou state and the system in which it resided: "a little area of China surrounded by large tribal areas. Large parts of what politically belonged to China as a state at that time, still belonged ethnically and culturally to the tribal areas." (1967: 22) Existing "vassal" nations and states in the world-system's polyculture area (which contained proto-Chinese "Hua-Hsia" peoples and many others) remained substantially autonomous, and underwent little internal reorganization. (Hsu and Linduff 123, 127-128, 150-152, 380)

King K'ang planted new military-garrison states to the south. (Hsu and Linduff, 129-133)

This appears to be the peak of Chou dynamism, with firm control of the Yellow River basin, defense against northern nomads, and notable expeditions southward to the Han and Huai valleys. (Hsu and Linduff 133-137)

950 BC. Hegemonic. Hegemon: Chou (King Mu)
925 BC. Hegemonic. Hegemon: Chou (King Mu)

The reign of King Mu may have involved hegemonic order-maintaining operations. (Hsu and Linduff 137-140)

900 BC. Hegemonic. Hegemon: Chou (King Kung)
875 BC. Hegemonic. Hegemon: Chou (King I)

The system seems to have been stable at this time, for these reigns were "uneventful." (Hsu and Linduff, 140) But there seems to have been a bureaucratization and centralization going on which eventually reached a critical point. (Hsu and Linduff 140-141, 145, 146, 280)

In 841 BC an attempt by King Li to monopolize finances and repress opposition by terror, i.e. to reorganize the system as a genuine centralized bureaucratic empire, was stopped by a coup of the "feudal nobles" (i.e., leaders of subject states), who installed a more pliant Chou king after a 14-year "regency." (Hsu and Linduff, 144-146) Incidentally, it also firmed up the chronology of Chou. (Hsu and Linduff, 387-390)

Chou never recovered from the coup and the regency. Under Li's successor Hsüan, Chou had lost control of its northern frontier, was hard-pressed by mobile peoples--Jung in the north and Hsien-yun near the western capital. Chou military expeditions southward, earlier and even into the troubled late reigns, had expanded Chou's grasp, permitting substantial tribute-collection in the Han-Huai area. Now in its preoccupation with defending the northern frontier against nomads, Chou also let slip its grip on its southern vassals, whom it could no longer mobilize on its behalf. (Hsu and Linduff 258-262, 268, 279)

800 BC. Unipolar. Polar state: Chou (King Hsüan)
775 BC. Unipolar. Polar state: Chou (King Yu).

Horse-nomad Jung had been fought on the northern frontier by the Chou vassal-garrison states of Jin and Ch'in, by King Chao and King Mu. In 771, a Jung alliance captured the Chou capital and killed the king. The dynasty fled east. (Hsu and Linduff 135, 139-140, 192-194, 259, 265) The "Eastern Chou" revived a doctrine of universal empire and a rhetoric of feudalism; but behind it hid, no revived Chou hegemony, but a multistate system, more often than not multipolar (cf. Walker, 13, 20), continuing for five centuries, until the rise of Ch'in (Qin). There was first a brief period of extreme disintegration, with two rival Chou kings. (Maspero, 171)

750 BC. Nonpolar: "a world of numerous small city-states." (Blunden and Elvin, 61)

By the beginning of the annals of Lu, 722 BC, there were about 170 states in the former Chou conquest area, ten of them rather more important than others, and "of approximately equal power": Lu, Cheng (Zheng), Wey (Old Wei), Sung (Song), Chi (Ji), Ch'en, Ts'ao, Ts'ai, Ch'i (Qi), Chou (Walker, 20-21 ). Most of these states were on the central plain of the Yellow River, and were of Chou derivation, e.g. Cheng was a Chou colonial state. Sung was a remnant of Shang. Ch'i lay to the east, "was the direct descendant of Hsia" (Chang, 1980:350) and/or had a Chiang nobility (Chou allies) overlying a Shang population, over subjugated "indigenous," or at least "ancient," peoples. (Hsu and Linduff 160, 186, 201-205)

725 BC. Multipolar. Great powers: Lu, Cheng, Wey, Sung, Chi, Ch'en, Ts'ao, Ch'i, Chou.

As the system reordered itself, it also expanded. There probably was a Yangtze civilization/world system simultaneous with and parallel to the Yellow River system, and only coupling to it at about this time. The Yangtze system was probably hegemonic, its hegemon being the state of Ch'u (probably Man "barbarians," Miao-Yaos, Pulleyblank 460) in the upper Yangtze basin, which had had some previous brief collisional interaction with Chou. (Hsu and Linduff 128, 133-134, 138, 221, 225-226)

Ch'u in this period reorganized itself for northward expansion, came into continued interaction with the southern Chou colonial states, and began to conquer them. Ch'u tended over time both to extend its hegemony by subjugating independent states, and to annex its subject states and turn them into internal metropolitan provinces. Consequently, the multistate system occasionally assumed a bipolar configuration in which Ch'u led a southern, Yangtze-basin empire, and was opposed by an alliance led by one or another of the northern, Yellow River states. (Maspero 178-179; Walker 38-39)

The leader of the northern alliance is often spoken of in the literature as a "hegemon," but in fact no northern leader managed to achieve systemwide hegemony. Different states led the northern alliance at different times; as time went by, direct Chou successors were displaced by larger, less "Chinese" peripheral powers in the alliance headship, with its prerogatives: to call meetings; to mediate and arbitrate disputes; to authorize or undertake intervention (Walker, 79, 87-89). The status of the "hegemons" was dependent not only upon their personal qualities, but also upon the intensity of the southern challenge. When Ch'u underwent episodes of weakness or diminished militancy, the northern alliance would weaken or dissolve and a multipolar configuration would emerge.

For the twenty-year period 720-701 BC Walker (14, 55) identifies two great powers: Ch'u and Cheng. Blunden and Elvin (63) see Cheng's leader, Duke Chuang (r.c. 742-700, reign dates after Legge Prol. 102-111; Maspero 744-701; Maspero's dates cited hereafter e.g. as 744-701M), as the first northern "hegemon." However, in this period the states of Ch'i and Sung were also highly active in fighting wars, making alliances, and leading coalition invasions. Furthermore, Cheng was in fact an aggressive expansionist; repeatedly fought one or several of the northern states, including Chou itself (720, 718-716, 712-711, 706, 704, 701); only once helped them against the Jung (705); and never led them to resist the depredations of Ch'u (705, 703, 702). Chou, and then, after Chou suffered a great defeat (707M), Sung, led the counteralliance which provided northern resistance to Cheng. (Legge, 1-55; Maspero, 172-174) Accordingly, and matching Walker's (14, 55) ranking for 700-681:

The northern states continued to fight one another, allowing Ch'u to expand unhindered, until 680M, when Ch'i, which had itself been expanding successfully, presided at the first "hegemonic" northern conferences (which would involve some, but rarely all, of: Sung, Lu, Wey, Cheng, Ch'en, Ts'ai, Ts'ao) to arrange coercion of deviant northern states, Cheng first of all. (Maspero 182-183)

The statesman Kuan-tzu (Kuan Chung; Guan Zhong; Kuan I-wu; d.c. 644), in the employ of Duke Huan of Ch'i (r. c. 683-641, or 685-643M), undertook extensive centralizing, meritocratic, state-monopolistic, mercantilist, legalist, militarizing reforms, eliminating internal hegemonic or "feudal" structures. In consequence Ch'i was able to field "the largest and best organized army of its time." (Maspero, 180-181; Walker, 29-33) Meanwhile, Ch'u was stalled 676-671M by rebellion and civil war, and even became temporarily polite and entered relations with Chou. (Legge, 97-99, 105-106; Maspero 185-187)

(This is also Walker's ranking for 680-661: 14, 55.) Ch'u began reasserting its power by invading Cheng 666M. Eventually, in 665, Ch'i and the league, which were often active against Jung, Ti and other "barbarians," came to the aid of Cheng against a Ch'u invasion. After 658, Ch'u was somewhat contained by rescues, and by counterinvasions of states which inclined its way. Ch'u still made progress, though only slowly, against small border states: eliminating Hsien 655M, subjugating Hsu 654M (Walker, 29, 31-34; Legge, 56-173; Ebrey, 39; Maspero 182-188)

During this period, the small northern state of Jin (Chin), having recovered from the paralysis of sixty years of civil war, subjugated all its 7 or 8 small neighbors, establishing itself as a local hegemon on the north side of the Yellow River in a series of campaigns 669-652M. (Romanization in this section generally follows Wade-Giles, except that, to reduce the most obvious chance of confusion, the Pinyin "Jin" is used instead of Wade-Giles' "Chin.") The small Western state of Ch'in (Qin) had unified the Wei valley in a series of local wars 713-655M, but organized its acquisitions not hegemonically but as districts in a centralized state. (Maspero 175-178) Jin was a colonial state planted by Chou on the former Hsia territory, interacting with the northern Jung (Rong) nomads; Ch'in was a far western peripheral state, "non-Chinese" (i.e. non Hua-Hsia) , whose later conquests would by a sublime historic irony produce the "China" of which it was not really much a part. (See Hsu and Linduff, 190, 192-193)

Walker (52), apparently to the contrary, appraises the interval 660-641 BC as multipolar, with four great powers, Ch'u, Ch'i, Ch'in and Jin; but the latter pair seem to have risen to systemwide prominence only after 643M, when, after the death of Huan, Ch'i fell into some disorder, and lost its place. Ch'u swallowed a few more small states. Sung, under Duke Hsiang, attempted to assume the northern hegemony 641-637M, but got no following, and actually provoked the league to enlist Ch'u against Sung. (Maspero 188-191; Legge 172-186)

Ch'u accordingly made major advances, forcing the subjugation of Cheng, Ch'en, Sung, Ts'ai and Lu (633M). The northern semiperipheral state of Jin, under Duke Wen, in response assumed the headship of the Yellow River alliance (Ch'i, Sung, Cheng, Wey, Lu, Ch'in) against Ch'u, militarized his country, organized a large army, attacked Ch'u vassals Ts'ao and Wey (632M), inflicted a major defeat upon Ch'u in 631 (632M), disassembled its league, and compelled Ch'u to make peace in 627 (628M). (Maspero 188-201; Legge, 207-221)

After the death of Duke Wen of Jin at the end of the war (628M), a multipolar period ensued. Ch'in took advantage of the Jin succession to begin asserting itself, and became embroiled in a stalemated war with Jin (627M); Ch'u took advantage of the Ch'in-Jin war to reopen its struggle with Jin over the intervening states of Ts'ai, Ch'en, Cheng and Wey (627M). (Maspero 198-203)

This quarter-century was accordingly unusually variable, moving from bipolarity to multipolarity (643) to unipolarity (after 636) to bipolarity (631) to multipolarity (628).

(This matches Walker's great power list for 640-621: 14, 55.) Walker argues for the inclusion of Cheng, often treated as a pawn, on the grounds of its extent, wealth, centralization, patriotism, effective statecraft, defensive resilience, and occasional successful aggression: 49-52) Jin and Ch'u recognized stalemate and stopped fighting (624M). Another succession crisis in Jin (621-614M), in which Ch'in intervened, paralyzed it and caused the league to decline. Ch'i and Ch'u took advantage. Ch'i attempted to reassert its leadership, attacking its small neighbors Lu, Chu, Chü and Ts'ao, and forcing their submission. Ch'u returned to menace, invasion and subjugation (Ts'ai, Cheng, Ch'en, Sung 618-617M) and then collapsed into its own internal succession strife (614-611M), to the profit of Jin's alliance; reasserted itself (608-607M), and collapsed again (605M), reasserted itself and was successfully resisted by Jin (600M). (Maspero 203-206; Legge, 224-305)

(Walker lists Ch'u, Jin, Ch'in, Cheng, and Wu--but not Ch'i--for 620-601, and drops Cheng for 600-581: 14, 55. But this may be a misprint: Wu was not assertive until 583, or even, per Walker 52, 568.)

Ch'u, under King Chuang, rose suddenly to the greatest prominence, conquering Cheng and greatly defeating Jin (597M), subjugating Sung (596-594M), befriending Ch'i; the system was, briefly, unipolar (594-591M). (Legge 307-338; Maspero 206-207) The tables turned rather quickly: Ch'i tried to take advantage of Jin's weakness and a succession crisis in Ch'u to extend its influence over Lu; in 589M 587L a revivified Jin defeated Ch'i and forced it to submit 588M and renewed the league; whereat Ch'u made a treaty with Jin 588M. Ch'u-Jin bipolarity ensued 587-583, with intervening states vacillating between fears and pressures. (Legge 343-363; cf. Maspero 207-208) As Maspero says (209), "The suddenness with which these hegemonies arose and collapsed shows how fragile they were."

In 583 BC (584M), the southeastern peripheral state of Wu, a Ch'u vassal in the Yangtze delta, originally a distant Chou colony planted on a distinct local culture (Hsu and Linduff, 160) which was probably "Yi" Mon-Khmer (Pulleyblank, 459), inspired or provoked by assistance from Jin, revolted from Ch'u, allied with Jin, and began to assert itself against Ch'u. (Legge 362-364; Maspero 209-211) Jin was able to seize Ts'ai and Ch'en (583M), resume the leadership of the northern states (Sung, Wey, Lu, Ch'i) plus Wu. Ch'u sued for peace (582M); Jin and the league defeated Ch'in (578M). Jin was again the most powerful state. (Legge 370-407; Maspero 210-211)

Ch'u returned to action against Cheng, Wey and Sung (576M), but was rebuffed by Jin and the league (575M), which could however achieve nothing decisive. (Maspero 211-212)

Again this quarter-century was conspicuous for quick transitions: multipolarity, unipolarity, bipolarity, unipolarity, bipolarity.

This is consistent with Walker (46), though elsewhere he rates the great powers 580-561 as including Ch'u, Jin, Ch'in and Wu (14, 55).

For a moment Jin resumed unipolar status, enforcing league membership upon Cheng (571M) and Ch'en and Hsu (570M), supported by Ch'i, conciliated by Ch'u. Then Ch'u resumed its incursions (566M) and Jin, weakened by internal divisions, could do no better than maintain bipolarity. (Maspero 211-213; Legge 385-409) The camp of Ch'u included the small states of Hsu, Ch'en, and Ts'ai, and that of Jin the small states of royal Chou, Cheng, Wey, Chi, Ts'ao, Chü, Small Chü, Lu and Hsueh. The "middle powers" Ch'in and Yen in the northeast were neutral (Hsu, xii).

Jin's league defeated Ch'in's attempt to ally with Ch'u (561-559M), and Ch'i's defection and attack on Lu (556-553; -555M). (Maspero 213-214; Legge 471-528).

This period accordingly saw rapid change in the power structure: transitions from bipolarity to unipolarity, bipolarity, tripolarity, bipolarity, tripolarity, and bipolarity again.

Ch'i redefected and attacked Jin itself, but was defeated again and brought back to the league 549-547 (550-548M; Maspero 213-214, Legge 471-528).

Walker (14, 55) gives the great powers of 560-541 as Ch'u, Jin, Ch'i, Ch'in, Wu, but this better describes the situation a few years later, when Ch'u and the northern league led by Jin made peace in 546M. At this time there was an explicit acknowledgement that "Tsin, Ts'oo, Ts'e and Ts'in are equals," such that neither Ch'i nor Ch'in could be compelled to join the settlement; and Wu was also left out, or let out. (Legge 532-535; Hsu 57-58; Walker 56-58) Blunden and Elvin (64 )see this settlement as Jin and Ch'u having arranged a dual hegemony; here we would instead concur with Walker's judgement.

In 538M Ch'u became active again, creating a counter-league and leading it to war against Jin's ally Wu, which got no help from Jin, having in fact embarked on a career of expansion of its own. Among those thus led was the future great state of Yüeh, which comes to notice 535 BC. Yüeh, a non-Chinese (non Hua-Hsia) state (Hsu and Linduff, 161, 190), possibly Mon-Khmer (Pulleyblank, 459) lay in the far southeast, beyond Wu, in the Yangtze delta. (Maspero 214-215)

Ch'u conquered Ch'en and Ts'ai; Jin had become internally conflicted and could not respond, but Wu resisted stubbornly. Eventually Ch'u's relentless expansionism exhausted and alienated its population. A coup threw Ch'u into sudden disorder in 528 (529M), and the victors abandoned Ch'u's recent gains in the north (528M). Jin (528) and Ch'i (525) took the occasion to expand while Ch'u recovered and resisted Wu. (Maspero 213-216). Accordingly:

This is in accord with Walker's rating for 540-521 (14, 55). There was now a chaotic succession of assertive acts by a variety of powers, sometimes involving one state alone, sometimes carrying along a few allies or a part of the northern league: as by Wu 518 and 511 and 505, Yüeh (or Yu-yüeh) 504, Ch'in 504, Ch'i 502 and 500. Wu for instance did great damage to Ch'u 506M, was defeated by Ch'u, Ch'in and Yüeh 505M, and defeated Ch'u again 504M. Jin occasionally called the states together (510M, 506M), and unilaterally settled disputes in royal Chou (520M, 519M). (Legge, 532-773; Maspero 216-219)

Walker ranks only Ch'u, Jin, Ch'in and Wu as great powers 520-501, and only Ch'u, Wu and Yüeh in 500-481: 14, 55. On a criterion of unimpeded aggressiveness, all five seem about equally qualified in 500. Judging by the same criterion, all five were highly active over the next quarter-century: Ch'i was again aggressor in 497, Yüeh in 496, Ch'u in 495 and 494, Ch'i and Wu in 494, Jin in 493, Ch'i in 492 and 491, Jin and Wu in 490, Jin in 489, Wu and Ch'i in 488, Ch'u in 487, Wu, Jin and Ch'u in 486, Ch'i and Wu in 485, Yüeh, Ch'u and Jin in 483, Jin in 482 and 481, Yüeh, Jin and Ch'i in 479, Yüeh in 477 and 476. (Legge, 772-863; using the dating in the Concordance pp. v-xi, rather than that implied by Legge on p. 861)

In 497-490M, Jin fell into civil warfare among its great territorial lords, and its league began to dissolve. (Maspero 217, 227-228) Ch'i took advantage of the troubles to intervene to increase them, and to expand its local hegemony, until it too fell into succession difficulties after 489M. (Maspero 234-235) Wu had a skyrocket career: subjugating Yüeh 494M, attacking Ch'i 489-485M, usurping Jin's notional leadership of the non-functional northern league 482M, and exhausting itself in the process; in 482M it was defeated, and in 475-473M destroyed and annexed by Yüeh, which however was not strong enough to keep all its territory but shared with Ch'u. (Maspero 217-221, 242)

The larger states began extinguishing middle powers about this time. Sung absorbed Ts'ao 487 BC. (Walker, 27) Ch'u erased Ch'en 478 BC (479M). (Ssu-ma 1994, 78, 105; Maspero 242)

481 traditionally ends the "Spring and Autumn Era." Walker notes that there were then 13 important states, five of which were non-Chou (22), i.e. in some rather strong cultural sense "non-Chinese": Jin, Ch'in, Ch'u, Wu, Yüeh--in fact, almost every great power. The Far Eastern system remained polycultural: "there was a very small area in which only Chinese lived, and a large area surrounding it [but within the "Chinese' states] that was occupied by non-Chinese," Liao hunters, Yao hunters, Yüeh sailors, Tai ricegrowers, Tibetan sheep breeders, Turkish horse-breeders, Mongol cattle-breeders, Tungus pig-breeders. (Eberhard, 1967, 18-22)

Yüeh was again aggressive in 474 (when it destroyed Wu), Jin in 473 (472M), Yüeh in 470, Jin in 469 and 463 (463M). Here the detailed data of the Tso Chuan ends. (Legge, 772-863) Maspero's dates are hereafter normally employed.

110 or more states having been extinguished 722-463 BC, 22 remained. (Hsu, 1, 58-59).

In 453 Jin ceased to function as a unit and began to dissolve into three component parts, Hann (Han), Chao (Zhao), and (new) Wei. (Maspero 225-228)

Though it may be an illusion caused by the end of the detailed data series, it seems that the other three major powers, Ch'u, Ch'i and Ch'in, remained mostly quiet with respect to each other, Ch'u recovering and reorganizing, Ch'i involved in internal struggle and reorganization, Ch'in slowly expanding westward against stubborn tribal resistance, for the next 100 years. (Maspero 233-242)

Jin faded away in stages to 375 BC. About 424 BC the three new states had recognized one another's independence; by 402 (403M) they had been recognized by Chou. (Legge, Prol. 105; Maspero 228-229) They began functioning as major powers, though not quite at the level that Ch'u, Ch'i and Ch'in were later able to manage when internally stable, united and centralized. They were not so in this period, but rather preoccupied by internal power struggles and reorganizations, Ch'in being immersed in chronic civil war. Hann was able to begin the conquest of Cheng in 408M, and Wei to reduce and subjugate Wey, without interference. Yüeh occupied itself with local aggressions against its northern neighbors. (Maspero, 236, 244, 251)

400 BC. Multipolar. Great powers: Ch'in, Ch'i, Ch'u, Hann, Chao, Wei, Yüeh.

Two states of some significance were now emerging, Yen (Yan) and Ko-Choson. The northeastern peripheral state of Yen had been formed by resting a Chou elite on a Shang population. (Hsu and Linduff, 194-201) Beyond Yen there had by now formed a proto-Korean state in southern Manchuria and northwest Korea, a confederated kingdom of walled town-states, Ko-Choson ("Ancient Choson," "Old Choson"). (Lee, 13-14; Eckert et al, 11; Han 12-15; Henthorn 21))

The extent of the system in the warring states period, when its boundaries were expanded in the northeast (states of Yen and Ko-Choson), north (building of walls of Yen, Chao and Wei), and southwest (rise of Shu-Pa area of Szechwan, and its later conquest by Ch'in), would now be about 800 X 900 miles. (See Herrmann 6; Penkala 14; Blunden and Elvin 62-63)

Internal troubles and reorganizations continued at the start of the fourth century BC. Hann erased Cheng by stages 398-375 BC. Stability was restored in Ch'in. Yüeh fell into disorder 376-357. (Maspero 237, 244, 251-252)

New combinations were spurred by the efforts of Wei after 386 to refound Jin by subduing Hann and Chao. Interference by Ch'i was soundly defeated 384-378, and Wei gained stature. (Maspero 247-248)

Wei added to its stature by a victory over Ch'u 371, survived a succession civil war and a revolt by Hann and Chao 370, and brought Wey, Lu and Sung into a truncated northern league 356 BC. Ch'in, Ch'i and Ch'u all intervened, individually and then in combination 356-351, and forcibly dissolved Wei's league despite staunch resistance. Hann remained allied to Wei. (Maspero 248-249)

In this period Ch'in, advised by Lord Shang (fl. 361-338 BC, Walker, 100), began to undertake productive, totalitarian and militaristic imperial reforms, in emulation of Ch'u, and increasingly in opposition to the then pre-eminent northern leader Ch'i, aggressive and pre-eminent in the north with Wei's eclipse. (Ssu-ma 1994, 109-110; Walker, 100; Maspero, 237-242)

Wei sought protection from Ch'in against Ch'i 350-349. Wei, with Hann, reasserted itself 346, defeating Ch'u, but was compelled to recognize the hegemony of Ch'in in 342. Hann thereupon broke away; Wei tried to coerce it, and was defeated by Hann, Chao, Ch'i and Ch'in, and saved only by the intervention of Ch'u. Wei never recovered; in its extremely exposed central position it now became the prime advocate of peace. Wei received peace and even support from Ch'i, but became the main target of Ch'in's relentless eastward drive. (Maspero, 249-251).

Ch'i, powerful but passive, dominated Chao and Wei. Yüeh revived, began to assault Ch'i, then turned toward Ch'u, and was unexpectedly destroyed by it 334 or 333M. Ch'u annexed the old territories of Wu and exercised suzerainty over petty states in the original Yüeh lands. (Blunden and Elvin, 71; Maspero, 251-252; but Nienhauser believes Yüeh survived to c. 230 BC, note 117 to Ssu-ma 134)

Ch'i and Ch'u then fought each other to stalemate and exhaustion c. 333-323, giving Ch'in a free hand against Wei, which it slowly dismembered, 332, 331, 329, 325. (Maspero 251-252)

Ch'in mediated peace between Ch'i and Ch'u, and took its pay by subjugating Wei 323. (Maspero 252-253) Ch'i and Ch'u combined against Ch'in about 321, and when Wei rebelled (319) they went to its aid, bringing along Chao, Hann, Yen, and even the Huns (or proto-Huns, Hsiung-nu) of Inner Mongolia. Yen and the Huns may have attended as Chao vassals. This first major countercoalition forced Ch'in to retreat (318) but could not defeat it, and broke up over a prestige rivalry between Ch'i and Ch'u. Ch'in inflicted a paralyzing defeat upon Hann (317), and then took the opportunity to destroy the isolated state of Shu (316), thereby conquering the immense and rich territory of Szechwan, a major food source. Ch'in then extended its attacks, usually taking a bit of territory on each occasion: Chao 316; Chao and Hann 315; Wei and Hann 314; Chao 313; Ch'u, Ch'i (via Hann), and Yen (via Wei) 312; Ch'u 311. Ch'in isolated, defeated and subjugated Wei and Hann, and compelled Ch'u to cede a strategic mountain barrier and Wei the right bank of the Yellow River. Ch'in had also (315) broken through Jung resistance on its west to reach an important Central Asian caravan terminus. Ch'i had compensated itself poorly enough by occupying Yen 314, but was driven out by a revolt in 312. All the major states but Yen submitted to Ch'in in 310; Yen, hostile to Ch'i after the occupation, became friendly to Ch'in. (Maspero 241, 252-255, 257-258; Ssu-ma, 1994, 110-113. See Nienhauser's note 267--Ssu-ma, 1994, 112--which suggests confusion about which members of the "coalition" of 318 or 317 were actual combatants, or even participants at all)

But Ch'in lost its hegemony in a succession crisis 307-305 BC. Wei and Hann revolted to Ch'i. Ch'in made territorial concessions to keep peace with Ch'u 304, gave lands back to Hann and Wei 302, put down a rebellion in Shu 301 and sent a hostage to Ch'i. Ch'i now dominated Lu and some smaller states, Ch'in was an ally-protector to Wei and Hann and Yen, Ch'u protected Sung and the now-divided Chou realm; only Chao was outside the three spheres of influence. In 302 war broke out between Ch'in and Ch'u. (Maspero, 257-258; Ssu-ma, 114-115)

Ch'in made major gains against Ch'u in a war lasting to 292. Ch'i, Hann, Wei, Chao and Sung took advantage of this war to attack Ch'in 296--the second major countercoalition against Ch'in. They could not get past its mountain defenses, though Ch'in ceded some land to buy peace for the moment. Ch'in resumed its steady advances against Hann, Ch'u, and especially Wei 294-286. (Maspero 258-261; Ssu-ma, 115-117)

Ch'i now took the initiative, annexed Sung 286 BC, became hegemon to Lu and thirteen other small states, and proceeded to assault the "Three Chin" (Hann, Chao, Wei). The other six major powers formed an alliance which crushed Ch'i 285-284 BC. Yen actually occupied almost the whole of Ch'i 284-279 BC. When Ch'i at last drove Yen out, it returned as only a minor power, usually a passive ally of Ch'in. (Ssu-ma 117; Maspero 261-263)

The system was now bipolar. Ch'u had profited by the coalition to take over the former territory of Sung, and dominate Lu, Hann and Chou. Ch'in then turned on Ch'u in 280, and crushed it 278 BC, annexing its capital Ying and the Yangtze heart of Ch'u. (Maspero, 263-264) The system became unipolar.

Ch'u was largely confined to the Huai valley by a peace of 272-263. (Maspero, 263-264; Ssu-ma, 118-119) The polar state, Ch'in, was uniquely aggressive, attacking Wei or Hann or Chao almost every year. (Ssu-ma, 119-121; Maspero 265-267) Blunden and Elvin (72) emphasize its overwhelming preponderance in resources--territory almost equal to the other states combined, population probably larger than any other. Resistance was fierce, and slowly crushed. Ch'in defeated Wei with great slaughter 273 (274M), Chao with even greater 260, but the struggle continued. (Bodde, 1967:86; Maspero 264-266)

At the northeastern edge of the system, Ko-Choson declined under Yen pressure, losing the Liaotung peninsula. (Eckert et al, 12)

Ch'in, having eliminated West Chou 256-255 BC, finished off East Chou 249 BC. On both occasions the offending part of Chou, divided since 367, had tried to form a general alliance against Ch'in. (Ssu-ma, 83, 121-122; Maspero 267-268) Ch'u annexed Lu 249 (Maspero 264). A five-state countercoalition against Ch'in, led by Wei, did form, and defeated it 247 BC, but then dissolved. (Ssu-ma, 122) Ch'in resumed its attacks and piecemeal expansion. Another five-state coalition including Hann, Wei, Chao and Ch'u attacked Ch'in 241, but was driven off. (Ssu-ma, 128)

Struggles for power interrupted Ch'in's march 239-235 BC; it then resumed on a much grander scale. Ch'in's unchallenged military predominance over the other states in the system led within twenty years to the final elimination of the other states in a series of annexations. Hann was destroyed 230 BC, Chao 228 BC, Wei 225 BC, each abandoned by the remainder of the states. (Ssu-ma, 132-134; Maspero 267-268)

Ch'in finished off Ch'u in 223, Yen in 222, and Ch'i in 221. (Maspero 28) Ch'in built a universal state (with 36 commanderies each run by a governing committee) rather than a hegemony (Ssu-ma, 137). This universal state was designed and intended to last to infinity (Ssu-ma, 136), and actually lasted 15 years, to 206 BC. In consequence it falls between our datum points and therefore fails to appear in the coding at all.

It is of interest that the First Emperor of that universal Ch'in state, Ch'in Shih Huang Ti, found it expedient to join together the frontier great walls of the extinguished northern states of Chao, Wei and Yen, to create the first Great Wall of China. (Ssu-ma 146) The implication is that the system had extended itself even further north, and that the steppe peoples, especially the "Huns," were now a part of it.

Rebellions broke out in 209 BC, the year after the death of the First Emperor. (Ssu-ma 158) From 206 to 202 BC there was anarchy through the former Ch'in empire, and then the reconstruction of an empire called Han. Walker proposes (98, 37-39) that the Han state which succeeded Ch'in as the strongest element in the Far Eastern system looked more like the Jin of the late 7th and early 6th centuries BC (a league hegemon leading many locally autonomous states) than Ch'in and Ch'u ("totalitarian" empires which erased states and made their territories into provinces). True enough, as far as the former territories of Ch'in are concerned.

However, by 200 BC, the Far Eastern world-system has grown once again. Partly because of the peripheral effects of the Ch'in empire, the field of inquiry and narrative must now expand far beyond its imperial territory, which can hereafter be treated only as the cultural-political-economic-demographic core of a system at whose semiperiphery significant polities were forming under core pressure. Roughly these may be identified as: NE, (proto-) Korean; N, Steppe (Hun/Hsiung-nu, Sienbi/Hsien-pi, Turk/T'u-chüeh, Avar/Juan-juan, Mongol, etc); NW, Kashgaria (Tarim basin); SW, mountain (Tibeto-Burman, Tai); SE, coastal (Yüeh/Viet). The system's extent is now about 1000 X 1300 miles. (See Herrmann 9; Penkala 18) Core state claims of hegemony (and universal empire) must be evaluated in some relation to these polities, at least when they are citified. At the same time, the geographic extent of semiperipheral polities often overstates their relative politico-military and economic-demographic weight in the system.

Granting that Han became hegemonic to the systemic core, what of the extended semiperiphery?

The steppe polities in general, are hard to classify. At times they seem cityless stateless tent nomads nearly irrelevant to the discussion; at times they seem to form a state, with a mobile capital, or at least a headquarters, with an empire rivaling Han (as under Mao-tun 201-178 BC, or Chih-chih 56-36 BC); at times they seem like the nub of a small abortive civilization in the Orkhon basin, isolated from the Yellow River basin by the Gobi desert. We shall treat them according to their level of organization at any given coding year.

The first steppe polity to be a clear participant in the Far Eastern system was the proto-Hun (Hsiung-nu) tribal confederation, which had begun to contend with the proto-Alans (Yüeh-chih) to its west on the Mongolian plain. The Hun confederation (we shall use the later European label) was driven from Inner Mongolia south of the Gobi to Outer Mongolia north of the desert by a Ch'in army of 100,000 men in 214 BC, but returned to Inner Mongolia in 209 BC when Mao-tun proclaimed himself shan-yü or emperor (and "son of heaven"), ruling from the capital encampment Lung-cheng (near the future site of Karakorum: Ishjamts 153-154, 158, McGovern 115-116; Ssu-ma 167). The fall of Ch'in allowed the Huns under Mao-tun to incorporate the tribes of eastern Mongolia and western Manchuria. They also made vassals of the thirty-odd walled city-states of Kashgaria--Turfan, Loulan, Karashahr, Kucha, Aksu, Kashgar, Yarkand, Khotan, Khema, and others--fighting off the Han armies in 200 BC (Ishjamts 154, Ma and Sun 227-228, Barfield 33-35, McGovern 117-122, 133).

Southern Yüeh (now the Kwang provinces of S. China, plus north Vietnam), under its king-emperor Chao To (Tuo), a relic Ch'in conquistador of 218-214, declared its independence in 208, calling itself Nan-yüeh, or Nam-Viet 207. (Ssu-ma, 145-146; Ebrey, 83; Hall, SEA, 211-212)

In present Yunnan there had existed since perhaps 316 BC a independent kingdom of Dian (Tien) (Backus, 4), possibly Tai (Pulleyblank, 460).

200 BC. Bipolar. Polar states: Han, Hun. Korea: Ko-Choson weak and independent. Mongolia, Kashgaria: Hun vassals. Nan-yüeh and Dian independent.

The state of Wiman Choson (Chao Hsien), in Northwest Korea and Southeast Manchuria, was founded between 194 and 180 BC by a Chinese refugee, one Wiman, who seized the pre-existing Ko-choson state. Its capital was the city of Lelang, or Lo-lang, near Pyongyang. Wiman Choson expanded northward, eastward and southward. (Nelson 167-168, 203, 189; Eckert et al, 13)

Nan-yüeh accepted Han suzerainty 196, but revolted and declared itself an empire 183; a Han expedition against Nan-yüeh failed 181 BC. Han conciliated Nan-yüeh. (Majumdar, 14; Hall, SEA, 212; Ebrey 83)

Huns defeated a huge Han invasion army 200 BC. McGovern contends that thereafter, and to 140 BC, the Hun empire became "the largest and most powerful single unit in the Far East." (129) "The empire of continental Asia then belonged to the Hsiung-nu." (Grousset 34) In 198 BC Mao-tun concluded an unequal treaty with Han to delimit their imperial boundaries at the Great Wall, exacting heavy tribute in silks, fabrics, handicrafts, rice, gold and money. In 176 BC the Huns defeated the Alans/Yüeh-chih and seized Kashgaria from them.

In 166 BC the Huns fought Han to stalemate. A treaty of essentially equal character, despite the Han tribute contained therein, was negotiated. (Ishjamts 154; Enoki et al., 175; Barfield 35-36, 45-48, 53-54; McGovern, 121-129)

150 BC. Bipolar. Polar states: Hun, Han. Korea: Wiman Choson independent. Kashgaria: Hun vassals. Nan-yüeh: independent. Dian: independent.

Han itself remained internally as much a hegemonic as an imperial state until 140 BC. Han Wu-ti ruled 140-87 BC, and his reign saw dramatic shifts in power. He replaced vassal states with provinces within the Han domains; he expanded the Han empire in all directions.

Han food and luxury tribute to the Huns was successfully used to render the Huns economically dependent upon Han, and to produce internal tensions between an increasingly sinified elite and their conservative society. (Eberhard, 1952, 73-75; cf. Barfield 51-52) Han Wu-ti's wars with the Huns 133-123 BC drove them to move their capital north of the Gobi.

Southern Yüeh maintained its independence until Chao To's death in 137 BC, after which Han established control over its rulers. (Ebrey, 83)

Han was able to follow the Huns across the Gobi, and inflicted major defeats on the Huns in Outer Mongolia 119 BC, but at enormous expense. Though embroiled in leadership struggles, the Huns refused to accept vassal status, and Han lost the ability to defeat them across the desert. The Huns avoided invading Han armies in 111 and 110, and defeated a third in 103. (McGovern, 136-143; Grousset, 35; Barfield, 54-58; cf. Ishjamts, 155). But weakened by rapid successions and impressed by Han advances on both their flanks, the Huns were inclined to be unusually submissive in 101-100 BC, although there was a sudden breach in the latter year. (McGovern 153-154)

In Korea, Wiman Choson was conquered by Han in 109-108 BC, after an abortive attempt of 128 BC. Han set up four colonial commanderies, Lelang, Imdun, Hyondo, and Chinbon, Lelang being the longest-lived. (Nelson, 167-168; Lee, 16-19; Eckert et al, 13-14)

In Manchuria, a Han mid-Yalu commandery of Ch'anghae was established and abandoned somewhere between 128 and 115 BC, perhaps at Ye (proto-Koguryo?) request for support against Wiman Choson. (Han 26; Lee 23; Henthorn 20, 22)

Han conquered the Kansu corridor to Kashgaria from the Huns in 121 BC. In campaigns of 108, 103 and 101 BC Han may be said to have acquired hegemony in Kashgaria, which in this case meant that it received hostages, sent military colonists, and received tribute. (Ma and Sun, 227-228; McGovern 140-141, 149-152)

Southern Yüeh rebelled 112 BC, but was conquered, annexed, and further integrated into the empire 111 BC as a tributary protectorate. Thereupon Eastern Yüeh (now SE China) and Dian (the later Nanchao and Yunnan area of the southwest) volunteered to become tributary vassals 110-109 BC (Hall, SEA, 212; McGovern 144-145; Ebrey 8; Buttinger 93). What Han Wu-ti established in Yunnan was the "nominal" control or "sponsorship" whereby local rulers were acknowledged and given titles as agents for the Chinese in their own territories. (Backus, 4, 6) This is one of many possible hegemonic forms; as with others, its content or meaning is highly variable.

100 BC. Universal Empire. Metropole: Han. Korea: north incorporated (four Han colonial commanderies), south weak. Huns: weakened, remote, passive. Kansu: incorporated. Kashgaria: Han vassals. Dian: Han vassal. E. Yüeh: Han vassal. Nan-yüeh: Han tributary protectorate.

The Far Eastern system under Han was greatly extended, to perhaps 1200 X 1800 miles. (See Herrmann 10-11: Penkala 20; Blunden and Elvin 30) Note that the semiperiphery is mostly hegemonic in structure, while the core is a genuine empire. The classification of the system as a whole as Universal-Empire rather than Hegemony reflects a judgment about the relative sizes and weights of these two parts at the time.

In first century BC Korea, the Han commanderies colonized the northwest. Small Korean polities--southeastern Chinhan, southwestern Mahan, south-coast Pyonhan--grew up in the far south, Mahan at least having walled cities and Chinhan city-like stockades. These weak leagues alternately raided and formally submitted to Lelang. All the Chinese Han commanderies but Lelang had evaporated by 75 BC. (Nelson, 167-171; Lee, 19-21; Henthorn, 22-25; Han 33; Eckert et al, 14)

Han campaigns against the Huns in 99, 97 and 90 BC all failed. (McGovern 156-168; Barfield 56, 59) In the southwest, Dian rebelled unsuccessfully in 86 and 83 BC (Ebrey 83).

A Han campaign against the Huns 72-71 BC had limited success, mainly achieved by Han diplomacy, which incited the Tokhars (Wusun) of Dzungaria against their Hun overlords. (McGovern 156-168) But the Huns suffered a major disaster in a retaliatory attack on the Tokhars in 71 BC, whereupon their other vassal peoples--Dingling in the north, Wuhuan in Manchuria--rose up and attacked them. Between 60 and 55 BC there was factional internal warfare among the Huns. In 55 BC they split into an Eastern (Inner Mongolian) branch under Huhansie and a Western (Outer Mongolian) branch under Chih-chih. The Eastern Huns requested and received Han vassal status in 51 BC. The Western Huns sent hostages and tributary presents to Han, though remaining far beyond any real Han control. (McGovern, 156-171, 187; Barfield 40-41, 59, 61-63)

Han moved slowly to increase control over Kashgaria. Having subjugated Loulan 77 BC, Han extended control over Kucha 71 BC, Yarkand 65 BC, Turfan 60 BC. A Han protector-general ruled Kashgaria after 60 BC. (McGovern, 171-181)

Around Kokonor, Chiang tribes formed a confederation. The Han broke this up, subjugated the Chiang, and colonized around Kokonor 61 BC. (McGovern, 184)

50 BC. Universal Empire. Metropole: Han. Korea: Han Lelang commandery plus small statelets in south. Huns: Eastern Huns of Inner Mongolia Han vassals. Western Huns of Outer Mongolia Han pseudo-tributaries. Kashgaria: united Han protectorate of vassal city-statelets. Dian: Han vassal. Nan-yüeh: Han tributary protectorate.

Chih-chih's Western Huns, at first placatory, moved west, abandoning Outer Mongolia, and created in and around Turkestan a widespread empire. Chih-chih built a huge walled city (perhaps at the fortress on the Talas near the Jaxartes/Syr Darya) which served as the Western Hun capital. But a Han expedition of 36 BC destroyed city, empire, and Chih-chih. (Ma and Sun 228; Zhang, 1996a, 304; McGovern 187-196; cf. Ishjamts, 155, 163)

Huhansie's Eastern Huns occupied the now-vacant Outer Mongolia, but remained, on the whole, on good terms with Han, despite some episodes in which the Tokhars (Wusun) of Dzungaria, Han vassals, and the Wuhuan of Manchuria, Hun vassals, provided some cause for dispute. (McGovern, 186-187, 196-204) The Han gave the Eastern Huns gifts in return for tributary visits, and it is possible that this relationship had turned from vassalage to extortion, somewhere in this period (Barfield, 63-66); but it seems to me more like one of very well-paid, but uniquely valuable, mercenary service.

Han retained its protectorate-general over Kashgaria, maintaining garrisons, planting colonies, undercutting vassals, dividing vassal states; the latter strategy also increased control over, and disorder within, the Tokhars of Dzungaria. It even acquired a purely nominal hegemony over the Kanggu of the Jaxartes basin. (McGovern, 204-208)

The Chiang of Kokonor rebelled 42 BC and were overwhelmed, subjugated, expelled or colonized. (McGovern 210)

AD/BC. Universal Empire. Metropole: Han. Korea: Han Lelang commandery plus small statelets in south. Huns: Han vassal tribal confederacy. Kashgaria: Han protectorate; vassal city-statelets. Dian: Han vassal. Nan-yüeh: Han tributary protectorate.

In the Han metropole, Wang Mang set up the one-emperor Hsin dynasty (AD 9-23). Hsin attempted nationalization of land, manumission of slaves, land division, grain price stabilization, and creation of grain reserves. Hsin also degraded and abused vassals. Wang Mang's reforms ultimately provoked class uprisings which destroyed him and vassal rebellions which dissolved the Han/Hsin empire. In particular, Wang Mang attempted to turn the Huns into a fully subjugated people, which they successfully resisted; indeed, they and the Wuhuan were in rebellion by AD 9. Hun raids (sometimes conducted with Wuhuan and Sienbi cooperation) were supplemented by operations against Hsin rule in Kashgaria. After the Hsin collapse, a Later, or Eastern, Han dynasty nominally reestablished itself AD 25. (McGovern 213-228)

In southeastern Manchuria, Koguryo coalesced as a state by the 1st century AD (though its traditional founding date is 37 BC). It sent envoys AD 9 to Wang Mang, and mobilized forces to enlist against the Huns, but fought Hsin instead, AD 12. (Nelson 204, 207; Henthorn, 26-28; Lee, 23-24; Han 27)

In eastern Manchuria, the Puyo tribal confederation (Henthorn 18-19, 28; Han 22-25; Lee 21-22) had become powerful enough to be ordered to mobilize against the Huns AD 12. Puyo accepted vassal relations with Hsin, and was used to check Koguryo and the Sienbi.

Some rebels in Kashgaria fled to the Huns, who staged repeated raids on Hsin; others held Karashahr against Hsin. As Kashgaria bit by bit, except Yarkand, defected from Hsin, the bits drifted into tributary vassalage to the Huns. (Ma and Sun 229; McGovern 215-222, 226-230, 239-240, 246).

Dian rebelled unsuccessfully AD 14. (Ebrey 83) Nan-yüeh was heavily colonized by Han people AD 1-25, with attempts to organize it along more conventional bureaucratic lines. (Hall, SEA, 212-213; Buttinger 97-99; Majumdar, 69)

The Huns supported a Han pretender in North China AD 30-36. The Later Han dynasty was actually secure only by about AD 40. (McGovern 215-216, 224-228)

A rebellion in Lelang was crushed by the new Han governor AD 30, but the Han direct-rule area contracted. (Lee 19; Henthorn 24)

Puyo resumed vassal service to Later Han, and began using the Chinese title wang in AD 49.

The Huns were expelled from Kashgaria AD 29 by the Han vassal state of Yarkand, which became the local hegemon. Refused office as Han Protector-General AD 41, the ruler of Yarkand then declared and enforced his independence as Kashgarian overlord by AD 46. From that point his oppressive rule provoked a series of risings by city-states who defected to the Huns. The Tokhars (Wusun) of Dzungaria, cut off from Han, became independent. (Ma and Sun 229; McGovern 215-222, 226-230, 239-240, 246).

A fatal drought decimated the Huns. Intrigue and faction split the Huns again, AD 47 or 48, into Northern (Outer Mongolia) and Southern (Inner Mongolia) confederacies, almost constantly at war. The Southern Huns served after 48 as a Han vassal and buffer, defending and supported by the Han garrison towns, and were well rewarded by Han embassies. The Northern Huns maintained independence and sought to control Kashgaria and Dzungaria, the Wuhuan and the Sienbi. But the Han were able to entice the Wuhuan to settle down as vassals, and mobilized the Sienbi as fighting vassals by offering a bounty on Northern Hun heads. (McGovern, 231-238; Barfield, 71-77)

Dian rebelled unsuccessfully again AD 42-45. (Ebrey 83) The southern part of Nan-yüeh, the Yüeh/Viet-populated future Tonkin, rebelled against Han AD 36, achieving independence 40-42. It was reconquered and reorganized as a Han imperial province, military colony, and conversion/assimilation target. (Hall, SEA, 212-213; Buttinger 97-99; Majumdar, 69)

AD 50. Unipolar. Polar state: Han. Korea: Han Lelang commandery, reduced. Manchuria: Puyo a Han vassal; Koguryo independent and hostile. Huns: vassal tribal confederacy (S); independent tribal confederacy (N). Kashgaria: independent Yarkand hegemony. Dian: vassal. Tonkin: imperial province/colony.

Koguryo was a militant and expansionist state, aiming northwest, southwest, south and southeast, always into Han's territory or hegemonic empire. Koguryo conquered many tribal peoples southward into present Korea (e.g. Okcho), extracted tribute, and fought frequently with the Han commanderies on the Yellow Sea coast. (Eckert et al 17; Lee 24; Henthorn 28; Nelson 207)

After Loulan, Turfan and Kucha had rebelled against Yarkand and accepted Northern Hun protection, Yarkand began to consolidate the rest of its Kashgarian empire by replacing subject kings with puppets, and these with appointed military governors. Khotan rebelled against this policy AD 60, with such success that Khotan replaced Yarkand as local overlord. At this point a Northern Hun army forced Khotan into vassalship, thereby giving them control over Kashgaria from AD 61. The Tokhars (Wusun) remained independent in Dzungaria. (McGovern, 239-246, 257)

Han and the Northern Huns had thus far not clashed directly, only through intermediaries and buffers. From AD 65 the Huns began raiding Kansu directly. The Han state, by now internally secure, counterattacked successfully in 73-74, inflicting a major defeat on the Northern Huns and regaining the overlordship of Kashgaria. As of AD 75 Han had their northeast and north frontiers securely in the hands of friendly Wuhuan and Sienbi or submissive Southern Huns, and Kashgaria to the northwest well controlled. (McGovern, 255-258, 264-274, 276; Barfield 77-80)

When one Han emperor died;, and the next reversed his imperialist policy, Han abandoned the attempt to control all Kashgaria AD 76. Kucha and Yarkand were lost to Northern Hun vassalship, though Khotan and Kashgar were held. (McGovern, 255-258, 264-274, 276)

Drought, famine, emigration and surrender afflicted the Northern Huns after AD 82. They made peace with Han AD 84. Han vassals, the Sienbi and Southern Huns, attacked them with great success AD 85 and 87. The Han general Pan Ch'ao reestablished control in Kashgaria AD 88-91, and became Protector General. Having directly attacked and defeated the Northern Huns in 89, Han installed a vassal over them in 91. When the successful Han general Dou Hien was for his pains executed in 92, his Hun installee revolted, and was destroyed AD 93 by an alliance of Han, Southern Huns, Sienbi, and others. Some Northern Huns moved west, and were confined to Dzungaria as distant, virtually autonomous Han vassals. Some joined the Han vassal Sienbi, who took over Outer Mongolia. The vassal Southern Huns had fallen into civil warfare. Pan Ch'ao undertook demonstrations and enforcement of Han control against various Kashgarian states AD 94 and 97. (McGovern 274-289; Ishjamts, 155; Barfield, 77-80)

AD 100. Universal Empire. Metropole: Han. Korea: Han Lelang commandery. Manchuria: Puyo vassal; Koguryo independent and contained. Mongolia: vassal Southern Huns (s); decentralized Sienbi (n). Kashgaria: tributary. Dzungaria: vassal Northern Huns. Dian: vassal. Tonkin: province/colony.

The Han core lost centrality and cohesion in the 2nd century AD, beginning with a succession crisis AD 105 which was followed by uprisings on the northwest frontier AD 106, in the west AD 107, and in the north and northeast AD 109. (McGovern, 291-294)

Han abandoned Kashgaria AD 107 in the face of revolts beginning 106. The Northern Huns of Dzungaria regained control there 107-119, defeated a Han counterstroke 119-120, and raided the northwest. (McGovern, 291-293)

Han's northern allies, the Southern Huns, Wuhuan and Sienbi, took advantage of floods and famine in the metropole to rebel in 109 but were defeated, the Huns and Wuhuan re-subjected, and the Sienbi driven off, in 110. (McGovern, 294-295) There were revolts among the Southern Huns AD 124, crushed by Han. (McGovern, 3020-202)

In the west, proto-Tibetan Chiang proclaimed a rival emperor and began attacking Han in 107; by 116 their empire had been liquidated through a series of assassinations. (McGovern, 293-294)

The Sienbi returned as raiders after 115. Their leader Kijgien reorganized their rival tribes (AD 121-133) into a cohesive tribal confederacy raiding Han, but resisted by Southern Huns and Wuhuan. After his death his works evaporated. (McGovern, 304; Barfield, 88)

Pan Yung reestablished Han supremacy over Kashgaria in a campaign 123-127, and it was enforced against Khotan 133. In Dzungaria, the Tokhars (Wusun) were let alone and the Northern Huns stalemated in campaigns of 134 and 135. (McGovern, 295-301)

Revolts by Southern Huns and Wuhuan AD 140-143 were put down by Han. (McGovern, 302-303)

AD 150. Universal Empire. Metropole: Han. Korea: Han Lelang commandery. Manchuria: Puyo vassal; Koguryo independent. Southern Huns: vassals, with Wuhuan. Sienbi: weak. Kashgaria: Han vassal city-states. Northern Huns: held at a distance. Tonkin: province/colony.

The Southern Huns and Wuhuan were on the whole submissive, at least between revolts of 153 and 158. (McGovern, 303)

Shortly after 150, Tanshihuai reunited the Sienbi. He established a Sienbi state with laws, large forces, and vassals--Dingling of Siberia, Puyo (Fuyu) of Manchuria, Tokhars (Wusun) of Dzungaria. He drove the Northern Huns out of Dzungaria and broke up their state for good. Tanshihuai raided Han regularly after 156. By 166 he had established a Sienbi steppe empire of dimensions comparable to that of the Huns, though with less of a settled population. He asserted full equality with Han. (Kyzlasov 318-319, McGovern 304-308, Ishjamts 156; Grousset 53-54)

Han lost much cohesion and went rapidly downhill toward the century's end. After the Revolt of the Yellow Turbans of 184, Han broke into warlord statelets, though the "dynasty" nominally continued to 220.

In Korea, the Chinese commanderies fell into disorder in the 180's. (Henthorn, 28) There was strong fighting between Koguryo and the Han warlords of Liaotung; both were expansionist. (Lee 24; Henthorn 28)

Tanshihuai destroyed a Han-Southern Hun army AD 177, after which the Southern Huns slowly disintegrated. But when Tanshihuai died around 180, he left no competent successor, and his Sienbi empire decayed after 180, though it remained a power into the first decades of the next century. (Kyzlasov 318-319; McGovern 303-308, 313-314; Ishjamts 156; Grousset 53-54)

Tonkin, nucleus of the current Vietnam, revolted against the Han and achieved independence AD 183. To its south, Lin-yi, proto-Champa, predecessor of South Vietnam, did the same AD 192. (Majumdar, 18, 69; Hall, SEA, 28)

AD 200. Multipolar. Core: warlords of Later Han. Manchuria: Puyo pro-Han; Koguryo independent. Korea: Han commandery at Lelang. Steppe: independent Sienbi state decaying. Kashgaria: independent city-states. Tonkin: independent. Champa: independent.

After a chaotic period of revolution and warlord secession and imperialism, the Three Kingdoms period AD 220-265 found the Far Eastern core split among Wei in the Yellow River basin (Loyang), Shu Han in the western Yangtze Szechwan basin (Chengdu), Wu in the eastern Yangtze area (Nanking). Wei was largest, most densely populated, best armed and wealthiest.

In Korea, another Chinese commandery, Taifang/Taebang, with a capital city near present Seoul, was established AD 204 by the Lelang commander, the northeast China warlord. Puyo formed ties with Lelang. Koguryo moved its capital south to the Yalu AD 209. From this point it is convenient to treat Koguryo as a Korean rather than Manchurian state, although it was both. (Nelson, 169, 189, 220-222; Henthorn, 28-30; Lee 23, 37)

The Sienbi state split, hiving off Toba, Muyung and T'u-yü-hun (or Togon: Beckwith, 17) kin-tribe parts. (Ishjamts, 156)

The Southern Huns broke up into many tribal units, some pro-Han, some independent AD 216; later they were loyal or submissive to Wei, while it lasted. (McGovern, 313-315)

Wei inherited the Han protectorate of Kashgaria. (Ma and Sun, 229-230; Grousset, 54) Shu Han inherited Han sponsorship of Dian; Chu-ko Liang led a major expedition into Yunnan, but rejected direct control in favor of patronage. (Backus, 6)

In Korea, Lelang sought independence as "Yen" in 237, but was crushed and taken over by Wei. (Nelson, 169, 189; Henthorn, 28-29; Lee 23) The Korean state of Paekche in the southwest of the peninsula dates no later than about the middle of this century; it was hostile to Koguryo and friendly to the Chinese dynasties, though it probably defeated a Wei attempt to extend the commanderies AD 246. (Nelson, 220-222; Henthorn 29-30; Lee 37)
Wei, provisioned by Puyo, successfully attacked Koguryo AD 244, taking the capital and holding it for a year, in reprisal for a Koguryo raid of 242. (Henthorn 29; Han 23, 42; Lee 23, 45)

Champa (actually then called Lin-yi, after its capital) sent embassies to offer tribute to the Chinese governorate of Tonkin, and received embassies to spread "Chinese civilization" in the 220's; nevertheless Champa aggressively attacked and expanded against Tonkin in 248. (Majumdar, 22; Coedès, 42-44; Hall, SEA 29)

The Indianized state of Funan, centered on the Mekong Delta, predecessor of Chenla and Cambodia, now puts in an ambiguous appearance. Was Funan truly "the dominating power on the peninsula for five centuries" (Coedès, 36, 61)? Or was it a temporary assemblage of small chiefdoms for trade with, and requests for aid from, whichever Chinese state was handy (D. Chandler, 1996: 15)? Did Chinese envoys find there "walled cities" (Hall, SEA, 27) or "walled villages" (Coedès 42)? Whatever it was, it was polite, sending embassies offering presents to Wu in 243. (Coedès 40-41)

AD 250. Unipolar. Polar state: Wei. Yangtze basin: Shu Han and Wu independent. Korea: Koguryo and Paekche independent; Chinese commanderies at Lelang and Taebang. Manchuria: Puyo vassal to Wei. Mongolia: Southern Huns vassals; Sienbi independent, divided. Kashgaria: Wei protectorate. Dian: vassal of Shu Han. Tonkin: Chinese governorate. Funan: tributary to Wu.
Champa: independent and hostile to Tonkin.

Wei annexed Shu Han AD 263. Wei was overthrown by a military coup in 265 that changed the state-name to Jin. This "Western" Jin state lasted about 265-302, sometimes as the polar state in a unipolar system, sometimes as a systemwide hegemon.

In Kashgaria, several states became powerful from the mid-3rd century: Kashgar, Khotan, Loulan and Shan-shan. (Zhang, 1996b, 284, 288-289; but McGovern, 174, identifies Loulan with Shan-shan)

Funan sent an embassy to Wu 268. It then may have aided Champa in the latter's northward expansionist attacks on Tonkin c. 270-280.

Western Jin annexed Wu in 280. Western Jin, unlike Wei, partly decentralized itself, appointing territorial lords. (Holcombe, 35-36) From 281 to 302 there were famines, plagues, floods and banditry in north China. Northern peoples had been allowed to immigrate and settle, and ethnic conflicts grew. (Wright, 24)

In south Korea, Mahan and Chinhan opened trade relations with Western Jin. (Han 33)

The Sienbi invaded Puyo AD 285; Western Jin restored Puyo. (Lee 22; Henthorn 28)

Funan sent three embassies to Western Jin, 285-287; Champa sent one 284. (Majumdar, 23; Coedès, 42-44; Hall, SEA, 28-29).

AD 300. Unipolar. Polar state: Western Jin. Manchuria: Puyo vassal to Jin. Korea: Koguryo independent, checked by Paekche (friendly to Chin); Chinese colonies at Lelang, Taebang. Tonkin: Jin governorate. Champa: strong, independent, peaceful relations with Western Jin. Funan: at peace with Western Jin since last embassy.

A succession struggle in Western Jin from AD 300 produced civil wars and decentralization. The Sixteen Kingdoms 302-420 could be seen as a multipolar period for the system, though perhaps at times unipolar for the core. The core always included the central, Yangtze state of Eastern Jin. There was usually a far southern state (Nam Viet), a western state (Ch'eng), 3 Korean states, and several northern states, Hun, Mongol or Toba.

There were fratricidal civil wars in Western Jin 300-306. These provided the occasion for northern alien tribes to enter and conquer north China. (Holcombe, 27) The Jin empire's overlord for the Southern Huns, one Liu Yüan, revolted as Hun shan-yü AD 304; claimed the heritage of Han and created a Han Kingdom in North China; claimed the entire empire AD 308. The Hun/Han state conquered and destroyed the imperial capital Loyang AD 311; controlled most of North China by 317. The Western Jin fled and reorganized as a Yangtze basin state, the Eastern Jin at (modern) Nanking, 317. A coup overthrew the Han/Hun dynasty, 318. Two Hun-ruled states, a Western Chao at Changan and an Eastern Chao at (modern) Beijing, emerged 319. (McGovern, 316-351)

Eastern Jin continued the process of decentralization, territorialization, and feudalization of its predecessor. It suffered rebellion 322-324. (Holcombe 29-30, 38-42)

In Korea, Koguryo conquered the Jin Lelang commandery in AD 313; Paekche absorbed Taebang. Puyo was isolated from Jin when Jin lost southern Manchuria, c. 316 to the Murung Sienbi, who reorganized as the state of Former Yen AD 319. (Nelson 169, 211; Henthorn 30, 34; Lee 23, 36; Han 23, 43)

AD 325. Multipolar. Great powers: Eastern Jin, Western Chao, Eastern Chao, Liang, Nam Viet, Koguryo, Paekche, Puyo, Former Yen.

Eastern Chao conquered Western by AD 329. United Chao, with capitals at Loyang and Ye (Anyang), overawed the Yangtze state of Eastern Jin, the divided Toba Sienbi of Southern Mongolia, the Liang state of Kansu, the Former Yen state of the Murung tribe of the Sienbi in southern Manchuria, as well as the city-states of Kashgaria. Chao however then failed to complete an attack on Eastern Jin 342, failed in an attempt to further subjugate Former Yen (and lost overlordship of it), was consequently repudiated by the Tobas and Liang, and was repulsed in an attack on Liang. (McGovern, 316-351)

Though plagued by disastrous rebellion 327-328, still Eastern Jin was able to conquer Szechwan 347. (Holcombe 29-30, 38-42)

Former Yen badly defeated Koguryo in 342 and subjugated Puyo in 346. (Han 23, 43; Lee 23; Henthorn 30, 34)

Champa built itself up militarily in a peaceful period to 336. After a coup, an aggressive ruler subjugated interior tribes, and then had a falling-out with Eastern Jin. Champa requested the cession of the territory of Jih-nan 340, did not receive it, seized it anyway during troubles there 347, and defeated Jin forces 348 and 349. (Majumdar, 23, 24; Coedès, 45; Hall, SEA 29)

AD 350. Multipolar. Yangtze basin: Eastern Jin. Yellow River basin: United Chao. Japan: Wa/Yamato state. Korea: Paekche vs. Koguryo (independent). Manchuria: Former Yen (Murung Sienbi); Puyo vassal to Former Yen. Mongolia: Toba Sienbi. Kansu: Liang. Kashgaria: city-states. Tonkin: Jin governorate. Champa: independent and aggressive.

The Chao dynasty destroyed itself as its Hans massacred and destroyed its Huns, and were overrun by Former Yen 350-351. (McGovern 350-351) Former Yen conquered Loyang 364, but ran athwart of a sinifying Tibetan state of Former Ch'in, set up in 350 at Changan, which conquered all of Former Yen by 370. (Grousset, 58-60; Holcombe, 31; Eberhard, 1952, 77-78; Huang, 88)

Around mid-century Paekche became an Eastern Jin vassal. Paekche destroyed and incorporated Mahan AD 369. Paekche and Koguryo fought for the center of the peninsula, Paekche being victorious AD 371. Koguryo accepted vassal status to Former Yen in 355 and Former Ch'in AD 372. (Fairbank et al, 282; Henthorn, 33-35, 37, 47; Lee 22, 37; Han 35, 43-44) Puyo became a Koguryo protectorate when their mutual overlord, Former Yen, was destroyed AD 370. (Henthorn, 34; Lee, 22)

About 371, a Togon state in the Kokonor area appeared; it became a vassal to Former Ch'in during the latter's brief ascent.
(Molè, xiii, 77, 79)

Champa attempted unsuccessfully to expand northwards 351 and 359, lost Jih-nan instead, and sent an embassy in 372. Funan reappears for the first time since 287, sending tribute to Eastern Jin 357 and then falls silent again. (Coedès, 46-48, 56; Hall, SEA 29, 31; Majumdar 25)

Former Ch'in annexed the Liang state in Kansu 376 and subdued Kashgaria 382-383. It thus reunited the north, and turned to attack Eastern Jin. But its assault on south China failed in 383 and the state split into five parts. A (Turkic/Sienbi) Toba state expanded from Tatung to Anyang (Ye) in the 390's, transporting and settling conquered Sienbi, Huns and Koreans, and taking on the dynastic label Northern Wei 398/399. (Grousset, 58-60; Holcombe, 31; Eberhard, 1952, 77-78; Huang, 88)

Eastern Jin weathered wars with the north, puppet emperors, regional and palace strongmen. A rebellion of 399 was too much for it to survive. (Holcombe, 30-33)

Koguryo remained tributary to whatever was the strongest state in north China, accepting patents of investiture, though the relation seems to have become almost nominal quite soon, since in 391 Koguryo began a vigorous expansion in all directions, which suzerains generally discouraged. Silla, in the southeast, formed as a state about this time out of the Chinhan tribe of Saro, and proceeded to seek Koguryo's suzerain protection against Paekche. In southern Japan, a strong unified state, Wa or Yamato, had by now formed. Paekche sought Japanese protection, and became a vassal in 397. (Fairbank et al, 282; Henthorn, 33-35, 37, 47; Lee 22, 37; Han 35, 43-44)

On the south coast of Korea, Pyonhan had evolved into the Kaya League of six states, with old trade and cultural links to Yamato. Pressed by Silla and Paekche, the Kaya League probably became tributary to Yamato, and secured military aid. The Wa-Kaya alliance attacked Silla in 399. (Henthorn 35-37)

Kashgaria came under Former Ch'in for a moment, 382-383, just before that dynasty collapsed. (Grousset, 59)

About 388-390 Togon was vassal to one of the Former Ch'in successor states, Western Ch'in (Kansu). Togon revolted in the 390's, but was defeated and resubjugated. (Molè, xiii, 77, 79)

Champa sent an embassy in 377, then renewed its attack on Jih-nan 399 and was defeated. (Coedès, 46-48, 56; Hall, SEA 29, 31; Majumdar 25)

AD 400. Multipolar. Yangtze basin: Eastern Jin. Yellow River: "16 kingdoms," notably Northern or Toba Wei at Tatung; also Later Liang, Northern Liang, Hsia, Later Ch'in, Western Ch'in, Northern and Southern Yen (Ebrey 87; Grousset 59-62). Japan: Yamato/Wa. Korea: Silla vassal to Koguryo; Koguryo vassal to a N. Chinese state, Paekche vassal to E. Jin and Yamato. Manchuria: Puyo vassal to Koguryo. Kokonor: Togon vassal to Western Ch'in. Tonkin: Jin governorate. Champa: independent, aggressive against Tonkin.

The Eastern Jin at Nanking, in what should probably be called the Yangtze State (since it continued as fundamentally the same state through a series of "dynastic" coups), underwent a coup in 403 and a countercoup 404-405, fell under the control of their saviors, and were in due course replaced by the Liu Sung (Former Sung) AD 420. (Holcombe, 32-33) A separate ethnic identification, "nan-ren" (Southern people), had by now developed among the inhabitants of the Yangtze State, and northerners and southerners had developed contemptuous labels for each other. (Wright, 28-29)

Silla, backed by Koguryo, defeated the Wa-Kaya attack in 400, and made peace with Wa in 402. Wa troops installed a Paekche scion during a succession struggle there in 405. (Henthorn 37-38)

Avars (Ju-juan, Juan-juan, Hun-Mongols--Liptak, 48; Grousset, 84) established a powerful nomad empire or Kaghanate in Mongolia 402-555. In the early 5th century it contended on equal terms with Northern Wei, the Toba state of north China. Northern Wei drove the Avars back in 402 and 424 and raided across the Gobi 425 to disrupt their hordes. (Kyzlasov 321; Grousset 60-62)

Togon raided Western Ch'in c. 401, was badly defeated, and settled down to wage a long and unsuccessful struggle to regain lost territories. Togon submitted once again 421. Taking advantage of its position on the route to Kashgaria, Togon also submitted to the Yangtze State 423. (Molè, xiii-xv, 5-10, 27, 80-86)

Champa renewed its invasions of the Chinese province of Tonkin in 405, 407, 413, at which time it was badly defeated and counterinvaded, and fell into anarchy to 420. Raids on Tonkin continued, but Champa was again badly defeated 420, and in 421 sent an embassy to the Yangtze State requesting investiture. (Coedès, 56-57; Hall, SEA, 35; Majumdar, 25-26, 28-31)

AD 425. Multipolar. Great powers: Yangtze state (Liu Sung dynasty); Northern Wei, and other Yellow River states; Avar confederacy; Koguryo; Wa; Champa.

The Northern Wei, having taken Loyang 423, proceeded to destroy and absorb the other states of north China by 439. They and the Yangtze State thereafter constituted the "Northern and Southern Dynasties." (Grousset, 61-62) The Northern-Southern period to 589 included a south China dynasty on the Yangtze, a partly sinified Yellow River Toba state (Wei/Yuan), three Korean states, Puyo, and far southern states (Champa, Funan). More shapeless were far southwestern proto-Burman formations (Pong, Talaung, Prome), and the Avar steppe tribal confederacy in the far north. At its most centralized the system was probably occasionally bipolar, more usually multipolar.

Koguryo's "Long-lived King" Changsu-wang (413-491) maintained tributary ties and accepted investitures from both northern and southern Chinese dynasties, as well as northern nomadic peoples, thereby gaining effectively total independence. (Henthorn 47; Lee 38, 46; Han 47) Changsu-wang moved the capital south again in 427, to Pyongyang, and created several new major regional capital cities. Koguryo now pressed hard on Paekche and Silla, which allied against it in 433, Silla having stopped sending tribute and hostages. (Nelson 211, 216; Lee 38-40; Henthorn 47) In Manchuria, Puyo remained dependent on Koguryo. (Han, 23)

Northern Wei raided the Avars again 429, 443, 449 to keep them off balance. (Kyzlasov 321; Grousset 60-62)

Northern Wei annexed the Shan-shan (Loulan) kingdom of Kashgaria in 445. (Zhang, 1996b, 289; Molè, 116) It extracted tribute from Karashahr and Kucha in 448. (Grousset, 62)

During the rise of Northern Wei, Togon submitted to it (431) and seized Hsia and Western Ch'in territory; unable to extract more territory, Togon then shifted its major submission back to the Yangtze State. A pattern of good but weak relations with the Yangtze State continued. Togon alternately submitted and rebelled, raided and counterraided Northern Wei, which drove them out of their lands 444-446; they then took Khotan, and ranged through Kashgaria. (Molè, xiii-xv, 5-10, 27, 80-86)

Champa continued to pay tribute to the Yangtze State, but even so attacked Tonkin again 431, evoking an unsuccessful punitive invasion. Champa tried to ally with Funan to destroy Tonkin 431-432, requested its cession from the Yangtze State in 433, invaded again. In 446 another Chinese expedition badly defeated Champa, and took and sacked its capital. (Coedès, 56-57; Hall, SEA, 35; Majumdar, 25-26, 28-31)

Funan refused to help Champa conquer Tonkin 431-432. Funan instead sent embassies and presents to the Yangtze State 434, 435, 438. (Coedès, 56; Hall, SEA, 32)

AD 450. Multipolar. Major powers: Northern Wei (Yellow River Basin); Yangtze State (Liu Sung dynasty); Avar empire (Mongolia); Koguryo (Korea, Manchuria). Manchuria: Puyo vassal to Koguryo. Korea: Silla, Paekche independent. Kashgaria: Avar or Togon hegemony. Kokonor: Togon hostile to N. Wei. Tonkin: Yangtze State governorate. Champa: subdued, peaceful. Funan: vassal to Yangtze State.

Northern (Toba) Wei expanded at the expense of the Yangtze State AD 466-469. Northern Wei counterraided the Avars in the Gobi once more 458. (Grousset 64-65)