Book contents
- Designing Boundaries in Early China
- Designing Boundaries in Early China
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Maps
- Acknowledgments
- Chronology
- Preamble
- 1 The Basis of Ancient Borders
- 2 The Visual Modeling of Space in Text and Map
- 3 Movement and Geography
- 4 The Perception of the “State”: The Internal Definition of Sovereign Space
- 5 The Perception of the “Enemy”: The External Definition of Sovereign Space
- 6 Transgressions: Rupturing the Boundaries Between Sovereignties
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
Conclusion
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2021
- Designing Boundaries in Early China
- Designing Boundaries in Early China
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Maps
- Acknowledgments
- Chronology
- Preamble
- 1 The Basis of Ancient Borders
- 2 The Visual Modeling of Space in Text and Map
- 3 Movement and Geography
- 4 The Perception of the “State”: The Internal Definition of Sovereign Space
- 5 The Perception of the “Enemy”: The External Definition of Sovereign Space
- 6 Transgressions: Rupturing the Boundaries Between Sovereignties
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Charles S. Maier, in his Once Within Borders, has distinguished empires from states in how carefully state boundaries are delineated, and how stable their frontier areas are: More “cohesive” than the space of empires, the state space “aspires to frontiers stabilized by treaty – often as well by the so-called natural barriers of rivers and mountains – and to a more direct, uniform, and pervasive administration at home.” Empires, by contrast, “have tolerated enclaves of local autonomy and relatively loose frameworks for adherence of tributary communities.” The Russian tsars and Ottomans, for instance, “developed ideas of a coherent territory only relatively late and thought primarily in terms of tribal overlordship.”1 Though Maier does not immediately elaborate on exactly what lends a state greater “coherence,” in a footnote, he cites Weber’s celebrated definition of the state as that which claims a monopoly of legitimate physical power.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Designing Boundaries in Early China , pp. 179 - 183Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021