Most previous studies have held that the system of Tubo gaoshen (an honorary identity mark) was an imitation of a similar system in the Tang dynasty, referring to the latter’s official costume decorations for its stratified office-holders. These studies have not given due attention to the characteristics of the title itself. From the perspective of the change of the Tibetan name and based on existing research results and historical records in both Tibetan and Chinese, this article tries to offer a new understanding and preliminary discussion on the development of Tubo gaoshen and several related issues. We find that there are two paths in the evolution of its name: One is from Sug to Yi Ge or Yig, the other is from Yig tsang to Yig tshangs. The former is used to denote a concrete gaoshen and can be added as a prefix while the latter denotes the abstract idea of gaoshen and no attribute can be used before it. When the two are used together, the latter is used before the former, such as in: yig tshangs pa ni zangs kyi yi ge gtong/ (As to the gaoshen [yig tshangs], [he] is awarded a bronze yi ge).
In this paper, I trace the post-war Japanese genealogy of studies on China’s tribute system (imperial China’s relatively tolerant approach to its foreign relations) in relation to the English-language work of historian John King Fairbank (1907–91). I emphasize that, together with the sporadic Chinese studies into China’s tribute system prior to the 1950s, it was the post-war research of Japanese historians that inspired Fairbank, who, in turn, further stimulated critical debates on the topic in Japan. I first concentrate on post-war Japanese debates concerning an “East Asian world order” based on a “system of investiture/tribute.” This notion, developed by the Japanese historian Nishijima Sadao in 1962, precisely corresponds to Fairbank’s 1941 understanding of the “tribute system” or “Confucian world-order,” but contrasts with Fairbank’s later, controversial understanding of a “Chinese world order” as proposed in 1968. In the second part of this paper, I introduce Japanese historian Hamashita Takeshi’s 1980s and 1990s arguments on the “tribute trade system” as representative of the younger generation within this genealogy, contrasting it with the work of Immanuel Wallerstein and Andre Gunder Frank. In the third part, I locate this Japanese genealogy within the wider historical context of post-war Japanese intellectual cultural politics. This means that I examine Japanese historians’ arguments both from the angle of historiography and from the perspective of post-war Japanese intellectual history.
This paper discusses studies of the development of river conservancy in modern China, and the role of engineers-in-chief in river improvement planning on rivers such as the Hai-ho (Haihe) and the Whangpoo (Huangpu). It discusses the introduction of foreign hydraulic dredging technology and management into two major Chinese ports. It then analyses the process by which two agencies of the Chinese government absorbed and adjusted this technology to suit local circumstances in the treaty ports of Tianjin and Shanghai beginning in the 1890s. Without prior experience in river conservancy, the conservancy boards adopted a range of foreign technologies. This allowed them to develop into major institutions that facilitated increasing trade flows between China and the rest of the world. Of particular significance in this process of technological change was the role of the expatriate engineers-in-chief who were employed as chief executive officers of both agencies. They were responsible for establishing the operations of the agencies, accommodating an increasing range of responsibilities such as financial and human resource management, and training Chinese engineers and managers for senior positions until they were ready to replace the expatriate engineers-in-chief after the 1930s.
This paper is a response to Guotong Li’s article in which she argues that Li Zhi (1527–1602), He Qiaoyuan (1557–1633), and Li Guangjin (1549–1623) constituted a fellowship exemplified by their openness toward Islam and endorsement of maritime trade. Adopting a socio-intellectual approach, this paper rebukes the claim that the three scholars can be considered a fellowship. It demonstrates that their varying attitudes toward Buddhism and Islam should be considered in relation to their disparate intellectual dispositions. The paper also calls for a more prudent usage of the term “fellowship,” and examines the Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism revival in the mid-Ming, increasingly the dominant intellectual current in Quanzhou. Through an exploration of how Quanzhou Cheng-Zhu scholars participated in overseas trade as well as their literary commemoration of merchants, the paper supplements Guotong Li’s study of the city’s maritime trade with evidence broader than these three scholars and their Muslim connections. Together, it subscribes to the age-old Confusion tenet of “harmony with diversified views” (he er butong), thereby presenting a nuanced picture of Quanzhou.
This article studies the relationship between local society and social change in rural north China from the late Qing dynasty to the People’s Republic of China period through the activity of “Zhuo huanggui” (literally, “Catching the Yellow Ghost”). “Catching the Yellow Ghost” is a ritual activity in Guyi village, Wu’an county, Hebei province. According to villagers there, “Catching the Yellow Ghost” has been celebrated since the late Qing dynasty. However, due to political pressures in the 1950s, it was not until the 1980s that “Catching the Yellow Ghost” began to be revitalized. Since that time, “Catching the Yellow Ghost” has gained rapid popularity and fame in north China. Through the lens of the “Catching the Yellow Ghost” ritual, this article explores social transformation in China from the late 19th to the early 21st century. By analyzing the continuity and discontinuity of “Catching the Yellow Ghost,” this article offers a new understanding of the relationship between local society and social change in rural north China.