Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-45ctf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T04:01:44.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking Qing Manchuria's Prohibition Policies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2021

Jonathan Schlesinger Open the ORCID record for Jonathan Schlesinger [Opens in a new window]
Jonathan Schlesinger*
Affiliation:
Indiana University—Bloomington, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: joschles@indiana.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historians hold that to preserve the Manchu homeland the Qing court instituted a “policy of prohibition” (Ch: fengjin zhengce), forbidding Han immigrants from settling in the region until the final decades of its rule. Using Manchu-language archives from the garrison of Hunčun (Ch: Hunchun), this article questions whether such a prohibition guided local governance. In some jurisdictions in Manchuria, including in Hunčun, the Qing state did not always have an overarching policy towards Han migrants. Migration, in fact, was often less of a concern to the state than poaching. We can reassess the history of Manchuria accordingly. Modern historians have been preoccupied with the coming of Han migrants to Qing Manchuria; the Qing government in Hunčun was not.

Keywords

QingManchuriamigration

Information

Type
Late Imperial China
Information
Journal of Chinese History 中國歷史學刊 , Volume 5 , Special Issue 2: The State and Migration in Chinese History , July 2021 , pp. 245 - 262
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I wish to thank Anthony Barbieri, Patricia Ebrey, and all the participants in the “State and Migration in Chinese History” workshop for the insights they offered in their own papers and in response to mine. Special thanks, too, to Steven Miles, Zhao Shiyu, and two anonymous reviewers for incisive written feedback. All remaining shortcomings are my own.

References

1 Gottschang, Thomas and Lary, Diana, Swallows and Settlers: The Great Migration from North China to Manchuria (Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, The University of Michigan, 2000), 2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 The historiography on the national identity of the region has been prodigious since the early twentieth century. For recent entry points, see Nianshen, Song, Making Borders in Modern East Asia (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 201–18Google Scholar; Duara, Prasenjit, Sovereignty and Authenticity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003)Google Scholar; and Culver, Annika A., Glorify the Empire: Japanese Avant-Garde Propaganda in Manchukuo (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

3 Many works put Han migration at the center of their Manchurian histories. For an empirically rich early work on Qing Manchuria as a Sinicizing frontier, see Lee, Robert H.G., The Manchurian Frontier in Ch'ing History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For more recent scholarship, see Reardon-Anderson, James, Reluctant Pioneers: China's Expansion Northward, 1644–1937 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; and Shan, Patrick Fuliang, Taming China's Wilderness (Burlington, VT: Routledge, 2014)Google Scholar.

4 For a touchstone recent work, see Kim, Loretta E., Ethnic Chrysalis: China's Orochen People and the Legacy of Qing Borderland Administration (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2019)Google Scholar; for overviews of other parts of northern Manchuria, see Yanagisawa Akira 柳澤明, “Shinchō tōchiki no Kokuryūkō chiku ni okeru shōminzoku no keisei saihen, katei no kenkyū 清朝統治期の黒龍江地区における諸民族の形成・再編過程の研究” (Tokyo: Waseda University, 2007); and Matsuura Shigeru 松浦茂, Shinchō no Amūru seisaku to shōsū minzoku 淸朝のアムール政策と少数民族 (Kyoto: Kyōto Daigaku Gakujutsu Shuppankai, 2006).

5 Enatsu, Yoshiki, Banner Legacy: The Rise of the Fengtian Local Elite at the End of the Qing (Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, The University of Michigan, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chen, Shuang, State-Sponsored Inequality: The Banner System and Social Stratification in Northeast China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2017)Google Scholar.

6 Bello, David Anthony, Across Forest, Steppe and Mountain: Environment, Identity and Empire in Qing China's Borderlands (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016)Google Scholar; Kim, Seonmin, Ginseng and Borderland: Territorial Boundaries and Political Relations between Qing China and Chosŏn Korea, 1636–1912 (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017)Google Scholar; Schlesinger, Jonathan, A World Trimmed with Fur: Wild Things, Pristine Places, and the Natural Fringes of Qing (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2017)Google Scholar.

7 Critiques of Sinicization have challenged the field for decades; by 1990, to quote Pamela Crossley, it already seemed “conceptually flawed, intellectually inert and impossible to apply to real history.” Crossley, Pamela Kyle, “Thinking About Ethnicity in Early Modern China,” Late Imperial China 11.1 (1990), 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Lin Shixuan 林士鉉, Qingji Dongbei yimin shibian zhengce zhi yanjiu 清季東北移民實邊政策之硏究 (Taipei: Guoli zhengzhi daxue lishi xuexi, 2001), 17–62.

9 The full Manchu name for the territory is sometimes given as Girin Ula.

10 See Guo Chunfang 郭春芳, “Qingdai Hunchun fudutong yamen ji qi dang'an” 清代珲春副都统衙门及其档案, Lishi dang'an 历史档案 (2004), 126. According to Guo, 100% of the records from the Qianlong reign period are in Manchu; 86% are for the Jiaqing period; 94% for the Daoguang period; 68% for the Xianfeng period; 65% for the Tongzhi period; 17% for the Guangxu period.

11 Guo Chunfang, 125–26; Hunchun fudutong yamen dang'an (HCDA) 珲春副都统衙门档案 (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2006), 1: 5–6. The published archives include the materials taken by the Russian army in 1900, as well as later records compiled in Hunčun between 1901 and 1909.

12 See, for example, the range of dispatches (xingwen 行文) from Hunčun in HCDA 3: 30–263 (QL19) and HCDA 39: 404–500, 40: 1–316 (DG9).

13 Based on karun locations detailed in Xu Shaoqing “Jiyu ‘Hunchun fudutong yamen dang’ de Hunchun xieling xiaqu kalun tixi fuyuan (1736–1860nian)”. My estimate is that the territory covered roughly 10,500mi2 (27,000km2). Massachusetts is 10,565mi2; Belgium is 11,849mi2.

14 HCDA 3: 30–263 (QL19), passim. 76 of 190 archived dispatches from QL19 relate to these basic travel permits.

15 HCDA 40: 7 (DG9.3.5). Manchu se translates to sui 歲 in Chinese. A person was one se at birth, two se with one's first lunar year, three with the second, and so on.

16 The Qing court reformed the licensing system rules for legal ginseng picking multiple times. An early touchstone study is Imamura Tomo 今村鞆, Ninjin shi 人蔘史 (Chōsen Sōtokufu Senbaikyoku, 1934–1940). For more recent scholarship, see Van Jay Symons, Ch'ing Ginseng Management: Ch'ing Monopolies in Microcosm (Tempe: Arizona State University Center for Asian Studies, 1981); Wang Peihuan 王佩环, “Qingdai dongbei caishenye de xingshuai” 清代東北采参业的兴衰, Shehui kexue zhanxian 社会科学战线 4 (1982), 189–92; Chiang Chushan, Qingdai renshen de lishi: yige shangpin de yanjiu 清代人參的歷史：一個商品的研究 (PhD Thesis, National Tsing Hua University, 2006); Tong Yonggong 佟永功, Manyuwen yu Manwen dang'an yanjiu 满语文与满文档案研究 (Shenyang: Liaoning minzu chanbanshe, 2009), 258–278; Kim, Ginseng and Borderland.

17 HCDA 32: 436 (JQ24.12.10); HCDA 33: 301 (JQ25.12.15).

18 HCDA 4: 341–342 (QL26.3.15). The meaning of irgen varied by context. In the administrative context of Qing documents, it meant a commoner outside of the banner system, and, as such, it referred primarily—but not exclusively—to people that were Han Chinese. See Elliott, Mark C., The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 133Google Scholar.

19 For an overview of the administrative history, see HCDA 1: 1–4; on the early Qing history of the area and the Kūrka people, see Terauchi Itarō 寺内威太郎, “Kyonwon kaisi to Konshun 慶源開市と琿春,” Tōhōgakū 東方學 69 (1985), 76–90.

20 Gaozong chunhuang shilu 高宗純皇帝實錄, in Da Qing lichao shilu 大清歷朝實錄 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986), 182: 355a (QL8.1.4). Subsequent Veritable Records references are abbreviated by emperor's temple name (e.g. Gaozong shilu). On the local administration, see for example HCDA 1: 137 (QL12.2.4), 140 (QL12.2.13), 170 (QL12.5.16), 260 (QL13.2.12), 264 (QL13.2.24), 298 (QL3.3.13), 310 (QL13.4.9), and 343 (QL13.5.12). On population movements and the Oirats under the Qing see Oyunjargal, Ochirin, Manzh-Chin ulsaas Mongolchuudig zakhirsan bodlogo (Ulaanbaatar: Arvin Sudar, 2009)Google Scholar.

21 See, for example, accounts in Hosoya Yoshio 细谷良夫, “Hunchun de Manzu 珲春的满族,” Manzu yanjiu 满族研究 4 (1996), 81–82.

22 The Sibe, for example, whom the court ordered to move from Manchuria to the furthest corner of Xinjiang, were simply “transferred to another garrison” (Ma: tebuneme unggire), just as others were “transferred with their families” to Dzungaria during the Dzungar wars. Qingdai Xinjiang Manwen dang'an huibian 清代新疆满文档案汇编 (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe), 68.108, 69.95.

23 The term ukanju varies by context. I have translated it elsewhere as “escapee,” and “runaway” can be a fair translation as well.

24 See, for example, the language in the monthly reports on escaped slaves. HCDA 3: 31 (QL19.1.19), 39 (QL19.2.23), 94 (QL19.3.22), 103 (QL19.4.1), 111 (QL19+4.22), 128 (QL19.5.22), 131 (QL19.6.20), 136 (QL19.7.22), 155 (QL19.8.21), 171 (QL19.9.29), 224 (QL19.10.22).

25 It was boilerplate to describe Russians who sought to live in Qing Manchuria as people who “escaped out” (Ma: ukame tucike). See FHA MWLF 3802.50.181.2912 (JQ16.6.15), 3806.3.182.71 (JQ16.9.10), 3806.3.182.71 (JQ16.9.10), 3806.3.182.71 (JQ16.9.10), 3820.48.182.3437 (JQ17.8.17), 3834.52.183.3260 (JQ18.9.6), 3854.12.185.1030 (JQ19.10.13), 3879.63.187.658 (JQ21.7.6), 3928.2.190.1493 (JQ24.8.9), 3928.2.190.1493 (JQ24.8.9), 3928.2.190.1493 (JQ24.8.9), 3928.2.190.1493 (JQ24.8.9), 4008.27.195.666 (DG4.8.18), 4023.1.196.240 (DG5.8.3), 4023.1.196.240 (DG5.8.3), 4023.1.196.240 (DG5.8.3), 4023.1.196.240 (DG5.8.3), 4023.1.196.240 (DG5.8.3), and 4039.1.197.170 (DG6.8.22). On Koreans, see Gaozong shilu 666: 442b–443a (QL27.7.2). Note also that the Turguts were “deserters,” per Gaozong shilu, 887: 879a–880b (QL36.6.17) and 887: 881b–883a (QL36.6.18).

26 The laws for desertion changed over time, and punishments varied both by the number of times one deserted and the length of time one was away. See, for example, Xuanzong shilu, 204: 10b–11b (DG12.1.21).

27 See citations provided in footnote 24. The document elaborates three types of slaves: older household slaves (Ma: gūsai niyalma i booi fe aha); slave children (Ma: ujin aha); and slaves that had been sold with proper paperwork (Ma: doron gidaha bithe udaha aha).

28 HCDA 3: 85 (QL19.3.21), 103 (QL19.4.1), 154 (QL19.8.21).

29 HCDA 39: 463 (DG9.2.25).

30 The following derives from HCDA 1: 209–222 (QL12.6.23). The record, written in Manchu, provides no Chinese name for Hūribu.

31 For an overview of this dynamic, see works cited in note 16.

32 HCDA 4: 341–342 (QL26.3.15). The office in turn subdivided the ten guardposts into three types: three karun on the route to Ningguta (Hašun, Mukdehe, and Mijan); six “in the vicinity of Hunčun” (Angga, Hadama, Amida, Fotosi, Jurun, and Daidu), one “in addition to the above nine” (Monggo). Monggo karun was most likely on the coast on what is now called Amur Bay, opposite Vladivostok.

33 HCDA 15: 389 (QL52.2.10). This record also elaborates distinctions between permanent and seasonal karun.

34 HCDA 15: 389 (QL52.2.10). For more on the sources, see Yang Derong 杨德荣, “Qingdai Hunchun baqi bidingce chutan” 清代珲春八旗比丁册初探, Wenjiao ziliao 文教资料 34 (2019), 96–98.

35 Perhaps the most calamitous flood of the Hunčun River came in 1846, when the registered banner population fell from roughly 9,500 to 8,000. See Xu Shaoqing 徐少卿 and Li Yan 李燕, “‘Hunchun fudutong yamen dang’ 1781–1860 nian renkou dangce zhengli” 《珲春福都统衙门档》1781–1860 年人口档册整理, Lantai shijie 兰台世界 8 (2015), 138–39.

36 HCDA 1: 333 (QL13.4.27); HCDA 4: 341–342 (QL26.3.15).

37 See reports, for example, from the year 1754 (QL19) in HCDA 3: 31 (QL19.1.19), 87 (QL19.3.21), 95 (QL19.3.27), 115 (QL19.+4.15), 134 (QL19.6.28), 157 (QL19.9.9), and 228 (QL19.10.24).

38 HCDA 32: 436 (JQ24.12.10); HCDA 33: 301 (JQ25.12.15).

39 See, for example, HCDA 5: 113 (QL27.3.14), 124 (QL27.3.24), 143 (QL27.5.7), 184 (QL27.+5.29), 357 (QL27.3.14), 378 (QL27.3.30), 409 (QL27.5.21), 420 (QL5.+5.21).

40 On the centrality to ginseng in the formation of the Qing-Joseon border, see Kim, Ginseng and Borderland.

41 See, for example, HCDA 27: 144–145 (JQ19.2.15) and HCDA 38: 363 (DG8.1.25).

42 Da Qing huidian shili (DQHDSL) 大清會典事例 (JQ): 186, 14b–a; HCDA 29: 300–305 (JQ23.8.28).

43 Xuanzong shilu, 204: 10b–11b (DG12.1.21).

44 HCDA 3: 57 (QL19.3.14).

45 HCDA 1: 333 (QL13.4.27).

46 HCDA 33–53.

47 HCDA 40: 28 (DG9.4.15).

48 HCDA 33: 435–437 (DG2.5.1).

49 HCDA 43: 335 (DG14.10.15).

50 HCDA 33: 262 (JQ25.11.10).

51 Schlesinger, A World Trimmed with Fur, 55–91.

52 HCDA 40: 286 (DG9.11.15).

53 HCDA 39: 351 (DG8.11.5); 40: 286 (DG9.11.15).

54 Elliott, The Manchu Way, 175–91.

55 Jerry Norman defines selengge moo as “a tree with black trunk and leaves, and light purple flower that blooms for months without withering.” Norman, Jerry, et al. , A Comprehensive Manchu–English Dictionary (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2013), 315Google Scholar.

56 Schlesinger, A World Trimmed with Fur, 17–50.

57 On the “Manchu Way” and its significance, see Elliott, The Manchu Way.

58 HCDA 1: 272–278 (QL13.2.27).

59 See, for example, HCDA 37: 437 (DG8.1.25). The threat of bannermen in Guangzhou losing the Manchu way triggered the decree that arrived in Hunčun that year. In retrospect, such edicts must have found a peculiar local reception, as Manchu predominated locally. Knowing Chinese was the issue; in 1738, the Hunčun garrison had to request that a translator be specially sent from Ningguta to handle Chinese-language documents; HCDA 1: 426 (QL13.7.23).

60 For an introduction to the text see Tatsuo, Nakami, “Some Remarks on the Emu tanggū orin sakda i gisun sarkiyan,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manchu-Tungus Studies, ed. Stary, Giovanni, et al. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 77–94Google Scholar.

61 Sungyūn, Emu tanggū orin sakda-i gisun sarkiyan, 41a.

62 Ibid., 41b–47a.

63 Ibid., 47a–55b. For “not that complicated,” see the opening statement on 47a. His chapter on Mukden likewise surveys a range of tasks, but offers little about their significance or the special difficulties they posed. Ibid. 38a–40b.

64 Gaozong shilu, 142: 1045a (QL6.5.8).

65 Gaozong shilu, 1035: 868a–b (QL42.6.21).

66 Gaozong shilu, 1144: 328a–b (QL46.11.1).

67 Xuanzong shilu, 250: 778a–b (DG14.3.20).

68 See the concerns raised in Gaozong shilu, 273: 562a–b (QL11.8.18); 274: 583b–584a (QL11.9.7); 356: 917a–b (QL15.1.11); 1100b–1101a (QL15.8.24); Renzong shilu, 252: 404a–405a (JQ16.12.20); and Xuanzong shilu, 146: 231b–232b (DG8.11.4); 250: 778a–b (DG14.3.20); and 273: 206b (DG15.10.17).

69 See, for example, Renzong shilu, 228: 59b–60b (JQ15.4.17). For similar language in a different context, see Renzong shilu, 245: 165a–166b (JQ15.10.18).

70 DQHDSL (QL) 129: 22a.

71 See, for example, DQHDSL (JQ): 186, 14b–a.

72 A touchstone overview of the Willow Palisades and its functions remains Edmonds, Richard L., “The Willow Palisade,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 69.4 (1979), 599–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 For context, see Shuang Chen, State-Sponsored Inequality. Other internal boundaries emerged elsewhere. In 1832, for example, while allowing bannermen to begin using formerly “prohibited” territory, the court redrew boundaries and prohibited them from using land used for tribute collection, as well as areas west of the Sunggari and north of the Hoifa Rivers. Xuanzong shilu, 204: 10b–11b (DG12.1.21).

74 Gaozong shilu, 142:1045a (QL6.5.8).

75 Gaozong shilu, 150: 1152b–1153b (QL6.9.6).

76 Gaozong shilu, 1144: 328a–b (QL46.11.1).

77 Xuanzong shilu, 250: 778a–b (DG14.3.20).

78 Renzong shilu, 456: 55b–456b (JQ17.4.2).

79 Wenzong shilu, 567a–b (XF7.6.4)

80 Xuanzong shilu, 327: 1142a–b (DG19.10.21), 327: 1143a (DG19.10.22), 343: 226a (DG20.12.25), 364: 564a–b (DG21.12.28); Wenzong shilu, 567a–b (XF7.6.4); Muzong shilu, 370: 905a. On Mongol lands, see Xuanzong shilu, 80: 294b (DG5.3.20), 215: 200a–b (DG12.7.13); 362: 533a–b (DG21.11.26), 379: 847a (DG22.8.27), 447: 607b–608a (DG27.9.14). On grappling with the special prohibitions on settling in hunting reserves, see Xuanzong shilu, 37: 659b–660a (DG2.6.16)l Muzong shilu, 101: 224a–b (TZ3.4.25); 241: 340b–341b (TZ7.8.24); Dezong shilu, 69: 68b (GX4.3.2), 125: 804a–b (GX6.12.29), 198: 817b–818a (GX10.11.26) 246: 309b (GX13.8.22) 274: 662a–b (GX15.9.24). On fengshui, see Muzong shilu, 203: 624a–625a (TZ6.5.20), 247: 435b–436a (TZ7.11.20), 249: 474a–b (TZ7.12.27), 259: 601a (TZ8.5.25), 263: 653a–b (TZ8.7.25), 301: 1165a–b (TZ9.12.26); Dezong shilu, 67: 29a (GX4.2.6) and 80: 221b (GX4.10.18).

81 For a comparable modern dynamic, see Mae M. Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014).

82 Lin Shixuan, Qingji Dongbei yimin shibian zhengce zhi yanjiu.

83 Schlesinger, A World Trimmed with Fur, 88–91.

84 On fengshui, see Tristan G. Brown, The Veins of the Earth: Property, Environment, and Cosmology in Nanbu County, 1865–1942 (PhD Thesis, Columbia University, 2017); on hunting reserve policy, see Luo Yunzhi 羅運治, Qingdai Mulan weichang de tantao 清代木蘭圍場的探討 (Taipei: Wenshizhe chubanshe, 1989); and Menzies, Nicholas K., Forest and Land Management in Imperial China (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), 55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Gaozong shilu, 1070: 344a–b (QL43.11.3).

86 Excluding sulfur-producing zones, for which references abound, references in the Veritable Records to discussions of fengjin prohibitions at various types of mines include: Shengzu shilu, 221: 229a (KX44); Shizong shilu, 41: 606a–b (YZ4.2.10), 53: 803a (YZ5.2.8); Gaozong shilu, 35: 658b–659a (QL2.1.29); 95: 465b (QL4.6.29); 159: 15a (QL7.1.30), 240: 96b (QL10.5.10), 253: 272b (QL10.11.19), 269: 494b (QL11.6.21), 309: 46b (QL13.2.21), 360: 956a (QL15.3.1), 419: 488a–b (QL17.7.18), 511: 465b (QL21.4.30), 549: 1002a (QL22.10.27), 441: 1040a (QL22.11.28), 645: 222b–223a (QL26.9.28), 857: 481b–483b (QL35.4.27), 909: 170b–171a (QL37.5.22), 923: 405a–406a (QL37.12.28), 997: 335b–336a (QL40.11.21), 1039: 925a–b (QL42.8.29), 1070: 344a–345a (QL43.11.3), 1071: 361a–b (QL43.11.16), 1106: 797b (QL45.5.2), 1140: 890b (QL45.9.8), 1251: 820a (QL51.3.29); Renzong shilu, 80: 37b–38a (JQ6.3.8), 87: 155b–156b (JQ6.9.26), 297: 1073b–1074a (JQ19.9.17), 282b (JQ21.11.24), 347: 586b–587a (JQ23.9.20); Xuanzong shilu, 23: 464b (DG1.8.30), 26: 471b (DG1.11.23), 46: 814b–816a (DG2.12.7), 111: 858b–859a (DG6.12.11), 118: 994b (DG7.+5.14), 154: 362b–363a (DG9.3.23)158: 444a–b (DG9.7.26), 166: 579b (DG10.3.24), 388: 965a–b (DG23.1.5), 389: 990b–991a (DG23.2.17), and 465: 866b–867a.

87 DQHDSL (QL), 129: 1a–22b.

88 Schlesinger, A World Trimmed with Fur.

89 For a fresh start in this direction, see Ma Jinzhu 马金柱, “Qingdai dongbei fengjin zhengce xia de qimin jiaowang guanxi—yi Qianlong chao Jilin Hunchun wei li” 清代东北封禁政策下的旗民交往关系—以乾隆朝吉林珲春为例, Lishi dang'an 历史档案 1 (2020), 97–103.

90 On the Qianlong emperor and the Macartney mission, see Henrietta Harrison, “The Qianlong Emperor's Letter to George III and the Early-Twentieth-Century Origins of Ideas about Traditional China's Foreign Relations,” The American Historical Review 122.3 (2017), 680–701.

91 On the haijin paradigm, see Zurndorfer, Harriet, “Oceans of History, Seas of Change: Recent Revisionist Writing in Western Languages about China and East Asian Maritime History during the Period 1500–1630,” International Journal of Asian Studies 13.1 (2016), 61–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On sakoku, a touchstone piece is Tashiro Kazui, trans. Videen, Susan Downing, “Foreign Relations during the Edo Period: Sakoku Reexamined,” Journal of Japanese Studies 8.2 (1982), 283–306Google Scholar; for more recent work, see Hellyer, Robert I., Defining Engagement: Japan and Global Contexts, 1640–1868 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2009)Google Scholar. On the problematic identity of Joseon Korea with hermitic prohibitions, see Tae-Jin, Yi, “Was Korea Really a ‘Hermit Nation’?” Korea Journal 38.4 (1998), 5–35Google Scholar. For a synthesis that goes beyond prohibition paradigms, see Rawski, Evelyn, Early Modern China and Northeast Asia: Cross-Border Perspectives (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.