Global Asia Initiative

This article examines how dynasties applied the Five Elements theory in their respective legitimation discourses throughout the history of imperial China. Drawing on both documentary and visual sources, I reveal that the Liao, Jin, and Yuan rulers constructed different dynastic lineages that challenged the “orthodox” dynastic succession pattern formulated by Han Chinese dynasties. In particular, I will show that the Yuan tacitly invoked Metal as its dynastic element and white as its imperial color. I argue that the Yuan choice of dynastic element essentially claimed succession to the Jurchen Jin, another non-Han conquest dynasty, rather than to the Song as scholars have previously assumed. However, these constructions were later negated by the Ming dynasty, which restored a purely Han Chinese dynastic lineage that excluded the Liao, Jin, and Yuan. These ideological conflicts, which were ultimately grounded in ethnic tensions between Han and non-Han peoples, eventually led to the disappearance of the Five Element theory in the Qing political rhetoric. This article sheds new light on understanding how a dynasty engaged its cultural heritage and ethnic background in its political ideology and how it perceived its own place in the Chinese dynastic lineage.

本文從文本和圖像資料出發以研究自宋以降漢族與少數民族政權對王朝正統性的不同闡釋。自秦以降，中國王朝多以五行相生來解釋本朝取代前朝的正統性，並同時以五行理論的五行與五色的對應關係來選擇王朝的服色，如宋朝取火運以繼後周之木德，並服色尚赤。 同時，與宋朝並存的契丹、女真、蒙古三個北方民族建立的遼、金、元政權也學習中原王朝的五行理論，分別選取了水德、土德、金德為各自的德運，挑戰了以漢民族本位的正統王朝世系：遼朝的水德生後晉的金德，挑戰了後晉之後的後周與宋的正統性；金朝雖未選取繼承遼朝德運，但其所取土德生自宋朝的火德，是以此證明金亡北宋後已完成中華德正統朝代更迭，而宣布南渡的南宋王朝為偽政權；元朝服色尚白，所取的金德生自同為非漢民族建立的金代的土德，以此證明其取中國正統自金代而非南宋。金、元所建立的王朝世系後被漢族建立的明朝否定，從明朝帝王畫像所服黃色看出明朝最終選定了生自宋朝的火德的土德，從而完全跳過了三個非漢民族政權，恢復了漢族王朝的世系延續。

宋徽宗在靖康⼆年北狩途中最早制造了「太祖誓约」的传说，其原因是为了将汴梁的失陷归咎于宋钦宗。由此看来，「太祖誓约」实是徽宗为了将赵宋⼤统传于宋⾼宗，⽽向其转达的⼀系列复杂政治讯息中的⼀部分。根据曹勋在其回忆录《北狩⻅闻录》中所记，徽宗向⾼宗传达的⼝谕主旨并⾮「太祖誓约」，⽽是⼀系列预⾔⾼宗未来登基的「瑞应故事」。本⽂通过解读《中兴瑞应图》画卷来探寻曹勋如何参与、影响这段历史。然⽽，「太祖誓约」的核⼼思想、即宋朝的「祖宗之法」及宋朝皇帝与⼠⼤夫之间的相互平衡、制约，并⾮曹勋作为⼀个曾效⼒于四朝帝王的「近习」所关⼼的重点。虽然宋⾼宗在其执政前期认为「太祖誓约」的传说对证明其继位的正统性有⼀定的政治价值，然⽽后来秦桧为相期间朝廷对⽂⼈⼠⼤夫⾔路⼤加压制，事实上与誓约的主旨背道⽽驰，这才最终导致誓约的内容不⻅于⾼宗朝的正史记载。曹勋所记载的「太祖誓约」传说在不同史料⽂本中的差异，极有可能来源于他本⼈为了迎合⾼宗朝政局⽽对徽宗原话所做的修改。李⼼传于宁宗嘉定元年完成的《建炎以来系年要录》乃是最早把曹勋版本的「太祖誓约」融⼊了宏观历史叙事的现存史料。

This article examines the creation, preservation, and destruction of the defensive forest that the Northern Song built in Hebei along the Song–Liao border. Created as a landscape barrier against the Kitan attacks, this forest established the necessary strategic depth between the capital city and the northern frontline of the Song empire to compensate for Kaifeng's geographical vulnerability. While the Song government painstakingly maintained this forest throughout most of the dynasty, Liao troops, Hebei borderland residents, and many Song officials had nonetheless posed incessant challenges to this military forestation project. In 1122/23, at the onset of the war on the Liao to retrieve the Sixteen Prefectures , the Song army removed this borderland forest that blocked their northern expedition. The destruction of this defensive forest, which could have had thwarted attacks from the north, dismantled the strategic depth between Kaifeng and the Hebei borderland and henceforth presaged the fall of Kaifeng to the Jin, the Liao's successor, in a few years. I argue that this strategic depth was not only a physical distance, but also a diplomatic, sociopolitical, and military link that connected the ecology of the Song's northernmost periphery and the fate of the entire empire. Emperor Taizu once ordered the planting of elms and willows in the Waqiao Pass region along the Song–Liao border. He prescribed that this forest should have only one road running through it, and this road should be narrow enough to allow only one mounted soldier to pass at a time. Later during the reign of Emperor Zhenzong (r. 997–1022), this road became the pathway that envoys traveled back and forth every year. As time passed by, the forest grew increasingly dense and luxuriant. The network of closely interlaced thick trees formed blockages and obstructions.

This article studies two sixteenth-century Asian texts: Khitay namah, a Persian travelogue about the Ming dynasty written by the Muslim merchant Ali Akbar and presented to the Ottoman sultan, and Xiyu, an illustrated Chinese geographical treatise with detailed travel itinerary from China to Istanbul by the Ming scholar-official Ma Li. In addition to demonstrating the breadth of Ottoman and Chinese knowledge about each other in the global Age of Exploration, these two books, written respectively for the monarchs of the self-proclaimed Islamic and Chinese universal empires, reflect the Ottoman and Chinese imperial ideologies in an era when major world powers aggressively vied for larger territories and broader international influence. Both the Ottoman and Chinese authors recast the foreign Other as the familiar Self – Ali Akbar constructed an Islamized China while Ma Li depicted a Sinicized Ottoman world – to justify their countries’ claims to universal sovereignty and plans for imperial expansion. Like many contemporary European colonial writers, Ali Akbar’s and Ma Li’s exploration of foreign societies, their literary glorification of their own culture’s supremacy, and their imposition of their own cultural thinking on foreign lands all served their countries’ colonial enterprise in the global Age of Exploration.