Andrew Chittick

Abstract This essay uses the history of the Wu region in the first millennium ce to explore the relationship between locality and empire. Many major East Asian empires are considered to be “Chinese” and to have essentially similar characteristics which are largely independent of their local base. Recent work on the Jiankang Empire (third to sixth centuries ce , also known as the “southern dynasties”) has shown that it had an imperial culture which was quite different from Central Plains-based empires, and which is in part attributable to the distinctive culture of the local Wu region. The relationship can be further illustrated by linking those developments to evidence from the tenth century, when the Wu region again served as the core of a political regime with imperial pretentions.

Most LIASE-sponsored programs incorporate some type of fieldwork in Asia as a primary element. Sustaining these field sites over the long term is vulnerable to varying levels of faculty commitment, personal relationships with overseas partner institutions, and the vicissitudes of student interest, especially given the small student pools at liberal arts colleges. Eckerd College has met this challenge by using a joint on-campus program to feed into multiple field research locations, which broadens the opportunities for faculty and student engagement. It has also allowed us to let some field sites lapse when they were not working out, without undermining the integrity and continuity of the overall program.

In a recent leading article in the Journal of Asian Studies, Hugh Clark critiques the teleological construct of a unified China, arguing that, at least up through the tenth century, the unified regimes of Qin/Han and Sui/Tang were a "superficial overlay" atop an East Asia comprised of many diverse cultural regions. I believe that scholars should take up Clark's critique as an invitation: to write meaningful histories of East Asian cultural regions, their distinctive peoples, and their diverse cultural and political identities, without relying on the teleological construct of "China" and the "Chinese" (or Han) people and culture. Scholars of the early medieval period have exceptionally rich opportunities to do this sort of work, yet we mostly have not taken sufficient advantage of them. This essay uses my own work on the Wuren as a case study to propose some useful frameworks and methodologies available to us, such as re-thinking the concept of "empire," and writing regional histories. Thinking regionally, especially when done in collaboration with scholars of other periods of fragmentation, will allow scholars of the early medieval era to make distinctive and important contributions to the broader fields of East Asian and comparative World history.