Mapping China and the Question of a China-Centered Tributary System
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2133697 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Richard J Smith (0000-0002-6340-0656, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Publication date | 2013-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Japan focus (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1557-4660 • E-ISSN: 1557-4660 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1557466013033536 |
| OpenAlex | W4410183661 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
Does it make sense to refer to a Chinese "tributary system?" A number of influential Western scholars, including John Wills Jr., James Hevia and Laura Hostetler, have argued that it does not-largely on the grounds that previous China scholars, John K. Fairbank "and his followers" in particular, have overgeneralized its historical significance. The result, however, has been that much of Fairbank's painstaking and valuable research on the structure and functions of the tributary system has been ignored. Although Fairbank may well have overestimated the degree to which Chinese assumptions about tribute shaped Qing policy toward foreigners, it seems unhelpful and misleading to suggest that they were of no consequence whatsoever
Archaeology · Cartography · China · Geography · Tributary · Global trade and economics · History
| Citations per year | 0.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2020 - 2022 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |