What do you think?
Asian Interactions and Comparisons
The Genesis of East Asia, 221 B.C.-A.D. 907
The Genesis of East Asia examines in a comprehensive and novel way the critically formative period when a culturally coherent geopolitical region identifiable as East Asia first took shape. By sifting through an impressive array of both primary material and modern interpretations, Charles Holcombe unravels what "East Asia" means, and why. He brings to bear archaeological, textual, and linguistic evidence to elucidate how the region developed through mutual stimulation and consolidation from its highly plural origins into what we now think of as the nation-states of China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.
Beginning with the Qin dynasty conquest of 221 B.C. which brought large portions of what are now Korea and Vietnam within China's frontiers, the book goes on to examine the period of intense interaction that followed with the many scattered local tribal cultures then under China's imperial sway as well as across its borders. Even the distant Japanese islands could not escape being profoundly transformed by developments on the mainland. Eventually, under the looming shadow of the Chinese empire, independent native states and civilizations matured for the first time in both Japan and Korea, and one frontier region, later known as Vietnam, moved toward independence.
Exhaustively researched and engagingly written, this study of state formation in East Asia will be required reading for students and scholars of ancient and medieval East Asian history. It will be invaluable as well to anyone interested in the problems of ethno-nationalism in the post-Cold War era.
Beginning with the Qin dynasty conquest of 221 B.C. which brought large portions of what are now Korea and Vietnam within China's frontiers, the book goes on to examine the period of intense interaction that followed with the many scattered local tribal cultures then under China's imperial sway as well as across its borders. Even the distant Japanese islands could not escape being profoundly transformed by developments on the mainland. Eventually, under the looming shadow of the Chinese empire, independent native states and civilizations matured for the first time in both Japan and Korea, and one frontier region, later known as Vietnam, moved toward independence.
Exhaustively researched and engagingly written, this study of state formation in East Asia will be required reading for students and scholars of ancient and medieval East Asian history. It will be invaluable as well to anyone interested in the problems of ethno-nationalism in the post-Cold War era.
345 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2001
About the author
Charles Holcombe
4 books2 followersThere is more than one Charles Holcombe in the Goodreads catalog. This entry is for Charles [2^] Holcombe, East Asia author.
University of Southern Iowa's Professor Holcombe’s research interests focus especially around China’s age of division between the Han and Tang dynasties, and the formation of an East Asian cultural community. He is the author of three books, including A History of East Asia: From the Origins of Civilization to the Twenty-First Century, which is now in a second edition, and has been translated into both Spanish and Turkish. He is a recipient of the Iowa Regent’s Award for Faculty Excellence.
University of Southern Iowa's Professor Holcombe’s research interests focus especially around China’s age of division between the Han and Tang dynasties, and the formation of an East Asian cultural community. He is the author of three books, including A History of East Asia: From the Origins of Civilization to the Twenty-First Century, which is now in a second edition, and has been translated into both Spanish and Turkish. He is a recipient of the Iowa Regent’s Award for Faculty Excellence.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 8, 2021
This had been on my wishlist forever, and I'm glad I read it. If you've read a smattering of the history of East Asian countries, this is a good book to bring it all together and see how they all relate. The section on Vietnam, especially, was all new to me (as well as the Southern Chinese "Yue" culture).
I could have done without the final chapter on evolution, Darwinism, etc.
Some of my notes:
"This was especially true in a China where it is doubtful that anyone ever normally spoke the classical written language aloud in ordinary conversation. In traditional China, the written language - "the only real language in the minds of many" - had not the slightest things to do with the modern vernacular". (p. 65)
From the beginning of the (Tang) dynasty... an "unbelievably high proportion" of those who were registered turned out to be women, who were conveniently largely tax exempt. (p. 83)
An instructive recent parallel may be found in the creation of the "Manchu" ethnic identity at the time of the establishment of the Qing dynasty in China in the seventeenth century. "There was, in fact, no traditional 'Manchu' culture or identity." There had been no previous Manchu "nation". Instead, there had been only a scattering of relatively small Tungusics-speaking bands. (p. 113)
...in the early seventh century, it was possible to observe of Paekche that their "current language and ceremonial apparel are roughly the same as in Koguryo". (p. 175)
I could have done without the final chapter on evolution, Darwinism, etc.
Some of my notes:
"This was especially true in a China where it is doubtful that anyone ever normally spoke the classical written language aloud in ordinary conversation. In traditional China, the written language - "the only real language in the minds of many" - had not the slightest things to do with the modern vernacular". (p. 65)
From the beginning of the (Tang) dynasty... an "unbelievably high proportion" of those who were registered turned out to be women, who were conveniently largely tax exempt. (p. 83)
An instructive recent parallel may be found in the creation of the "Manchu" ethnic identity at the time of the establishment of the Qing dynasty in China in the seventeenth century. "There was, in fact, no traditional 'Manchu' culture or identity." There had been no previous Manchu "nation". Instead, there had been only a scattering of relatively small Tungusics-speaking bands. (p. 113)
...in the early seventh century, it was possible to observe of Paekche that their "current language and ceremonial apparel are roughly the same as in Koguryo". (p. 175)
July 3, 2026
It's a good book.
But its worst quality is it really could have been a great one. The account of the development of East Asia as a cultural sphere from the Han through Tang (and particularly in the Three Kingdoms and Sixteen Kingdoms periods between them) is helpful. As his his argument that in some sense the East Asian cultural sphere is 'prior' to the nations of China, Japan, Vietnam and Korea.
What it is missing is any real causal argument. Particularly, why the Chinese imperial model, along with its literate social classes, spread to the places it did and not others. What characteristics were important and what wasn't?
The closest he gets is saying that in late antiquity the Chinese model was the only one on offer. But that wasn't the case for the northern steppe based dynasties. Equally, were that the case, why was it not adopted in those places where another option was on offer, i.e Tibet, Lan Xang, Lan Na, Ayudhya, which all opted for indic models. What made Chinese civilization so difficult or unappealing to its neighbours?
The words he could of used to answer these questions he spends with throat clearing repeating himself at length about why Japanese, Korean, etc. culture are still distinct.
He presents sinicization as largely the slow local adoption of Chinese culture by originally non-han, non-chinese speaking populations (with some limited migration). This has largely been shown to be mistaken through modern ancient genetics studies. Han people are largely descended from the same group in the Yellow River basin which formed the cultures of classical China. They displaced or swamped the populations to their south and west. Which makes his thesis quite a lot weaker and less interesting.
He strangely treats it as given that Japanese and Korean are part of the same language family, which is at best now, and in the 90s when he wrote it, a very doubtful if not impossible theory.
An unstructured meandering pile of nevertheless interesting history.
But its worst quality is it really could have been a great one. The account of the development of East Asia as a cultural sphere from the Han through Tang (and particularly in the Three Kingdoms and Sixteen Kingdoms periods between them) is helpful. As his his argument that in some sense the East Asian cultural sphere is 'prior' to the nations of China, Japan, Vietnam and Korea.
What it is missing is any real causal argument. Particularly, why the Chinese imperial model, along with its literate social classes, spread to the places it did and not others. What characteristics were important and what wasn't?
The closest he gets is saying that in late antiquity the Chinese model was the only one on offer. But that wasn't the case for the northern steppe based dynasties. Equally, were that the case, why was it not adopted in those places where another option was on offer, i.e Tibet, Lan Xang, Lan Na, Ayudhya, which all opted for indic models. What made Chinese civilization so difficult or unappealing to its neighbours?
The words he could of used to answer these questions he spends with throat clearing repeating himself at length about why Japanese, Korean, etc. culture are still distinct.
He presents sinicization as largely the slow local adoption of Chinese culture by originally non-han, non-chinese speaking populations (with some limited migration). This has largely been shown to be mistaken through modern ancient genetics studies. Han people are largely descended from the same group in the Yellow River basin which formed the cultures of classical China. They displaced or swamped the populations to their south and west. Which makes his thesis quite a lot weaker and less interesting.
He strangely treats it as given that Japanese and Korean are part of the same language family, which is at best now, and in the 90s when he wrote it, a very doubtful if not impossible theory.
An unstructured meandering pile of nevertheless interesting history.
August 22, 2021
对于一个东亚人来说，本书过浅了，不过毕竟是01年写的
August 20, 2012
Excellent work, more on the idea of what constitutes "East Asia" rather than a narrative history of the events of the first millennium A.D. Though I am more interested in modern East Asia, I found Holcombe fascinating. His essential argument is that East Asia is not merely a geographic expression, but constitutes a coherent cultural sphere bounded together by the use of Chinese characters and cultural practices originating in the Central Plain of China in the Qin and Han era. Holcombe debunks the nationalist myths of immutable and unchanging nations and ethnic groups as anachronistic, focusing on processes of cultural adaptation and assimilation. Overall, an important work to anyone interested in any era of East Asia, as well as the interactions of cultural transmission and nation building.
August 4, 2012
The only book I have found so far that treats "East Asia" as a single and coherent civilization. Holcombe's clearly articulated argument is that such a civilization can be defined and delineated by the dominant use of 漢字 [= hanzi (Chinese) = hanja (Korean) = hán tự (Vietnamese) = kanji (Japanese)] for each culture that has participated in East Asian civilization. It's a healthy corrective to the various national myths that currently distort how each of these peoples think about themselves and each other.
July 25, 2011
I found this book fascinating and really quite approachable. The author assumes some knowledge of East Asian history, but no more than the average reader with an interest in the subject is likely to have. The style is readable and eschews the pedantic tone of some works of history while maintaing and academic and fact-oriented tone and style.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews