Hubbry Logo
China properChina properMain
Open search
China proper
Community hub
China proper
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
China proper
China proper
China proper
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Framed by a dotted line, the provinces of "China proper". This definition excludes Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria.
Map of Asia from 1796, with China proper coloured in yellow as "China"
China proper
Traditional Chinese中國本土
Simplified Chinese中国本土
Hanyu Pinyinzhōngguó běntǔ
Literal meaningChina proper
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu Pinyinzhōngguó běntǔ
Wade–GilesChung1 Kuo2 Pen3 T'u3
Alternative Chinese name
Traditional Chinese中國本部
Simplified Chinese中国本部
Hanyu Pinyinzhōngguó běnbù
Literal meaningChina core
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu Pinyinzhōngguó běnbù
Wade–GilesChung1 Kuo2 Pen3 Pu4
Second alternative Chinese name
Chinese十八行省
Hanyu Pinyinshíbā xíngshěng
Literal meaningEighteen Provinces
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu Pinyinshíbā xíngshěng
Third alternative Chinese name
Traditional Chinese關內十八省
Simplified Chinese关内十八省
Hanyu Pinyinguānnèi shíbā shěng
Literal meaningEighteen Provinces inside Shanhaiguan
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu Pinyinguānnèi shíbā shěng
Fourth alternative Chinese name
Traditional Chinese內地十八省
Simplified Chinese内地十八省
Hanyu Pinyinnèidì shíbā shěng
Literal meaningEighteen Provinces in mainland
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu Pinyinnèidì shíbā shěng
Fifth alternative Chinese name
Traditional Chinese中原漢地
Simplified Chinese中原汉地
Hanyu Pinyinzhōngyuán hàndì
Literal meaningHan territory in Central Plain
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu Pinyinzhōngyuán hàndì
A 1912 map from an issue of National Geographic magazine showing the Republic of China. China proper is shaded in pink, while other Chinese territories have pink borders.
Map of China proper in 1900 from the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary

China proper, also called Inner China or Han China, are terms used primarily in the Western world in reference to the traditional "core" regions of Chinese civilization centered around the Yellow River and Yangtze River valleys. There is no fixed definition for China proper as many administrative, cultural and territorial shifts have occurred throughout history. One definition refers to the original heartland regions of the Chinese civilization, the Central Plain (southern North China Plain around the lower Yellow River valley) as well as the historical Nine Provinces; another to the Eighteen Provinces inside Shanhai Pass[note 1] designated by the Qing dynasty. In contrast, Outer China is a term usually includes the peripheral marchland regions such as Manchuria (particularly northern Manchuria), Gobi Desert,[note 2] Dzungaria, Tarim Basin, Tibetan Plateau and Yungui Plateau,[2] which were historically autonomous regions with unstable allegiance to the authority of Chinese sovereigns.

The term was first used by the Europeans during the 17th century to distinguish the historical "Han lands" (Chinese: 漢地, i.e. regions long dominated by the majority Han Chinese population) from "frontier" regions of China where Han populations intermix with other indigenous ethnicities (e.g. Turkic peoples such as Uyghurs, Kazakhs and Uzbeks, Tungusic peoples such as Manchus and Sibes, and Tibeto-Burmese peoples such as Tibetans, Yi and Bai) and newer foreign immigrants (e.g. Slavic colonists such as Russians and Ukrainian Cossacks), sometimes known as "Outer China".[1] There was no direct translation for "China proper" in the Chinese language at the time due to differences in terminology used by the Qing regime to refer to the regions.

Etymology

[edit]

According to Harry Harding, the concept can date back to 1827.[3] But as early as in 1795, William Winterbotham adopted this concept in his book. When describing the Chinese Empire under the Qing dynasty, Winterbotham divided it into three parts: China proper, Chinese Tartary, and the states tributary to China. He adopted the opinions of Du Halde and Grosier and suspected that the name of "China" came from Qin dynasty. He then said: "China, properly so called,... comprehends from north to south eighteen degrees; its extent from east to west being somewhat less..."[4]

A 1944 map of China Proper (Inner Mongolia), Northeast China), Mongolia (Outer Mongolia), Xinjiang, and Tibet from the War Information Office propaganda film Why We Fight: The Battle of China. The outer borders include several areas claimed by the Republic of China.

The concept of "China proper" also appeared before this 1795 book. It can be found in The Gentleman's Magazine, published in 1790, and The Monthly Review, published in 1749.[5] In the nineteenth century, the term "China proper" was sometimes used by Chinese officials when they were communicating in foreign languages. For instance, the Qing ambassador to Britain Zeng Jize used it in an English language article, which he published in 1887.[6]

"Dulimbai Gurun" is the Manchu name for China (中國, Zhongguo; "Middle Kingdom").[7][8][9] After conquering the Ming, the Qing identified their state as "China" (Zhongguo), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in the Manchu language. The Qing emperors equated the lands of the Qing state (including both "China proper" and present day Manchuria, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet and other areas) as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multiethnic state, rejecting the idea that China only meant Han-populated areas in "China proper", proclaiming that both Han and non-Han peoples were part of "China", using "China" to refer to the Qing in official documents, international treaties, and foreign affairs, and the "Chinese language" (Dulimbai gurun i bithe) referred to Chinese, Manchu, and Mongol languages, and the term "Chinese people" (中國人, Zhongguo ren; Manchu: Dulimbai gurun i niyalma) referred to all Han, Manchu, and Mongol subjects of the Qing.[10]

When the Qing conquered Dzungaria in 1759, they proclaimed that the new land was absorbed into "China" (Dulimbai Gurun) in a Manchu language memorial.[11][12][13] The Qing expounded on their ideology that they were bringing together the "outer" non-Han peoples like the Manchus, Mongols, Uighurs and Tibetans together with the "inner" Han people, into "one family" united under the Qing state, showing that the diverse subjects of the Qing were all part of one family, the Qing used the phrase "Zhong Wai Yi Jia" (中外一家) or "Nei Wai Yi Jia" (內外一家, "interior and exterior as one family"), to convey this idea of "unification" of the different peoples.[14] A Manchu language version of a treaty with the Russian Empire concerning criminal jurisdiction over bandits called people from the Qing as "people of the Central Kingdom (Dulimbai Gurun)".[15]

In the Manchu official Tulisen's Manchu language account of his meeting with the Torghut Mongol leader Ayuki Khan, it was mentioned that while the Torghuts were unlike the Russians, the "people of the Central Kingdom" (dulimba-i gurun; 中國, Zhongguo) were like the Torghut Mongols, and the "people of the Central Kingdom" referred to the Manchus.[16]

While the Qing dynasty used "China" (Zhongguo) to describe non-Han areas, some Han scholar-officials opposed the Qing emperor's use of Zhongguo to refer to non-Han areas, using instead Zhongguo to mark a distinction between the culturally Han areas and the territories newly acquired by the Qing empire. In the early 19th century, Wei Yuan's Shengwuji (Military History of the Qing Dynasty) calls the Inner Asian polities guo, while the seventeen provinces of the traditional heartland, that is, "China proper", and three eastern provinces of Manchuria are called "Zhongguo".[17] Some Ming loyalists of Han ethnicity refused to use Zhongguo to refer to areas outside the borders of Ming China, in effect refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Qing dynasty. Han Chinese intellectuals gradually embraced the new meaning of "China" and began to recognize it as their homeland.[18]

Political use

[edit]

In the early 20th century, a series of Sino-Japanese conflicts had raised Chinese people's concern for national unity, and the concept of a unified, undivided Chinese nation became more popular among Chinese scholars. On Jan 1, 1939, Gu Jiegang published his article "The term 'China proper' should be abolished immediately",[19] which argued that the widely accepted area covered by "China proper" is not the actual territory of any of the Chinese dynasties. Gu further theorized that "中国本部",[20] the Chinese and Japanese term equal to "China proper" at the time, actually originated from Japan and was translated into "China proper", hence the concept of "China proper" was developed by Japanese people, and it had become a tool to divide Chinese people, making way for the Japanese invasion of Mongolia, Manchuria, and other parts of China. Gu's article sparked a heated debate on the definition and origin of "Zhonghua minzu" (Chinese nation),[21][22] which contributed to unifying the Chinese people in the Second Sino-Japanese War, and to an extent shaped the later established concept of Zhonghua minzu.

Modern

[edit]
Much of the regions outside of China proper are autonomous regions.

Today, China proper is a controversial concept in China itself, since the current official paradigm does not contrast the core and the periphery of China. There is no single widely used term corresponding to it in the Chinese language.

The separation of China into a "China proper" dominated by Han people and other states for ethnic minorities such as East Turkestan for the Uyghurs impugns on the legitimacy of China's current territorial borders, which is based on the succession of states principle. According to sinologist Colin Mackerras, foreign governments have generally accepted Chinese claims over its ethnic minority areas, because to redefine a country's territory every time it underwent a change of regime would cause endless instability and warfare. Also, he asks, "if the boundaries of the Qing were considered illegitimate, why should it go back to the much smaller Ming in preference to the quite extensive Tang dynasty boundaries?"[23]

Extent

[edit]
The approximate extent of China proper during the late Ming dynasty, the last dynasty of China ruled by the Han people. Liaodong Peninsula was still administered as part of China proper before it was conquered by the Manchu.
The Eighteen Provinces of China proper in 1875, before Taiwan's separation from Fujian in 1885 and its annexation by Japan in 1895

There is no fixed geographical extent for China proper, as it is used to express the contrast between the core and frontier regions of China from multiple perspectives: historical, administrative, cultural, and linguistic. The Great Wall of China is often used as an approximate boundary between Han Chinese-dominated core regions and other frontier regions, which roughly corresponds to the so-called "400 mm (16 in) annual precipitation line"[24] that delineates arid/semi-arid regions largely unsuitable for agricultural activities from those with more rainfall and thus more adaptable to agrarian societies (such as those of the Han Chinese).

Historical perspective

[edit]

One way of thinking about China proper is to refer to the long-standing territories held by dynasties of China founded by the Han people. Chinese civilization developed from a core region in the North China Plain, and expanded outwards over several millennia, conquering and assimilating surrounding peoples, or being conquered and influenced in turn. Some dynasties, such as the Han and Tang dynasties, were particularly expansionist, extending far into Inner Asia, while others, such as the Jin and Song dynasties, were forced to relinquish the North China Plain itself to rivaling regimes founded by peoples from the north.

The Ming dynasty was the last orthodox Chinese dynasty of ethnic Han origin and the second-last imperial dynasty of China. It governed fifteen administrative entities, which included thirteen provinces (Chinese: 布政使司; pinyin: Bùzhèngshǐ Sī) and two "directly-governed" areas. After the Manchu-led Qing dynasty succeeded the Ming dynasty in China proper, the Qing court decided to continue to use the Ming administrative system to rule over former Ming lands, without applying it to other domains under Qing rule, namely Manchuria, Mongolia, Xinjiang, Taiwan and Tibet. The 15 administrative units of the Ming dynasty underwent minor reforms to become the "Eighteen Provinces" (一十八行省; Yīshíbā Xíngshěng, or 十八省; Shíbā Shěng) of China proper under the Qing dynasty. It was these eighteen provinces that early Western sources referred to as China proper.

There are some minor differences between the extent of Ming China and the extent of the eighteen provinces of Qing China: for example, some parts of Manchuria were Ming possessions belonging to the province of Liaodong (now Liaoning), which is inside the Ming Great Wall; however, the Qing conquered it before entering the Central Plain and did not administer as part of a regular province of China proper. On the other hand, Taiwan was a new acquisition of the Qing dynasty, and it was placed under the administration of Fujian, one of the provinces of China proper. Eastern Kham in Greater Tibet was added to Sichuan, while much of what now constitutes northern Burma was added to Yunnan.

Near the end of the Qing dynasty, there was an effort to extend the province system of China proper to the rest of the empire. Taiwan was converted into a separate province in 1885, but was ceded to Japan in 1895. Xinjiang was reorganized into a province in 1884. Manchuria was split into the three provinces of Fengtian, Jilin and Heilongjiang in 1907. There was discussion to do the same in Tibet, Qinghai (Kokonor), Inner Mongolia, and Outer Mongolia, but these proposals were not put to practice, and these areas were outside the provincial system of China proper when the Qing dynasty fell in 1912.

The Provinces of the Qing Dynasty were:

Eighteen provinces
Postal Pinyin Chinese Postal Pinyin Chinese Postal Pinyin Chinese
Anhwei Ānhuī 安徽省 Hunan Húnán 湖南省 Kweichow Guìzhōu 貴州省
Chekiang Zhèjiāng 浙江省 Kansu Gānsù 甘肅省 Shansi Shānxī 山西省
Chihli Zhílì 直隸省 Kiangsu Jiāngsū 江蘇省 Shantung Shāndōng 山東省
Fukien Fújiàn 福建省 Kiangsi Jiāngxī 江西省 Shensi Shǎnxī 陝西省
Honan Hénán 河南省 Kwangtung Guǎngdōng 廣東省 Szechwan Sìchuān 四川省
Hupeh Húběi 湖北省 Kwangsi Guǎngxī 廣西省 Yunnan Yúnnán 雲南省
Additional provinces in late Qing dynasty
Fengtien Fèngtiān 奉天省 Heilungkiang Hēilóngjiāng 黑龍江省 Kirin Jílín 吉林省
Sinkiang Xīnjiāng 新疆省

Some of the revolutionaries who sought to overthrow Qing rule desired to establish a state independent of the Qing dynasty within the bounds of the Eighteen Provinces, as evinced by their Eighteen-Star Flag. Others favoured the replacement of the entire Qing dynasty by a new republic, as evinced by their Five-Striped Flag. Some revolutionaries, such as Zou Rong, used the term Zhongguo Benbu (中国本部) which roughly identifies the Eighteen Provinces.[25] When the Qing dynasty fell, the abdication decree of the Xuantong Emperor bequeathed all the territories of the Qing dynasty to the new Republic of China, and the latter idea was therefore adopted by the new republic as the principle of Five Races Under One Union, with Five Races referring to the Han, Manchus, Mongols, Muslims (Uyghurs, Hui etc.) and Tibetans. The Five-Striped Flag was adopted as the national flag, and the Republic of China viewed itself as a single unified state encompassing all five regions handed down by the Qing dynasty. The People's Republic of China, which was founded in 1949 and replaced the Republic of China on the Chinese mainland, has continued to claim essentially the same borders, with the only major exception being the recognition of an independent Mongolia. As a result, the concept of China proper fell out of favour in China.

The Eighteen Provinces of the Qing dynasty still largely exist, but their boundaries have changed. Beijing and Tianjin were eventually split from Hebei (renamed from Zhili), Shanghai from Jiangsu, Chongqing from Sichuan, Ningxia autonomous region from Gansu, and Hainan from Guangdong. Guangxi is now an autonomous region. The provinces that the late Qing dynasty set up have also been kept: Xinjiang became an autonomous region under the People's Republic of China, while the three provinces of Manchuria now have somewhat different borders, with Fengtian renamed as Liaoning.

When the Qing dynasty fell, Republican Chinese control of Qing territories, including of those generally considered to be in "China proper", was tenuous, and non-existent in Tibet and Mongolian People's Republic (former Outer Mongolia) since 1922, which were controlled by governments that declared independence from China. The Republic of China subdivided Inner Mongolia in its time on the mainland, although the People's Republic of China later joined Mongol-inhabited territories into a single autonomous region. The PRC joined the Qamdo area into the Tibet area (later the Tibet Autonomous Region). The Republic of China officially recognized the independence of Mongolia in 1946, which was also acknowledged by the PRC government since its founding in 1949.

Ethnic perspective

[edit]
The approximate extent of the Han ethnicity in China and Taiwan as of 1983, denoted in brown.[note 3] Scattered distribution is denoted by circles.

China proper is often associated with the Han people, the majority ethnic group of China and with the extent of the Chinese languages, an important unifying element of the Han ethnicity.

However, Han regions in the present day do not correspond well to the Eighteen Provinces of the Qing dynasty. Much of southwestern China, such as areas in the provinces of Yunnan, Guangxi, and Guizhou, was part of successive dynasties of ethnic Han origin, including the Ming dynasty and the Eighteen Provinces of the Qing dynasty. However, these areas were and continue to be populated by various non-Han minority groups, such as the Zhuang, the Miao people, and the Bouyei. Conversely, Han people form the majority in most of Manchuria, much of Inner Mongolia, many areas in Xinjiang and scattered parts of Tibet today, not least due to the expansion of Han settlement encouraged by the late Qing dynasty, the Republic of China, and the People's Republic of China.

Ethnic Han is not synonymous with speakers of the Chinese language. Many non-Han ethnicities, such as the Hui and Manchu, are essentially monolingual in the Chinese language, but do not identify as ethnic Han. The Chinese language itself is also a complex entity, and should be described as a family of related languages rather than a single language if the criterion of mutual intelligibility is used to classify its subdivisions.

In polls the majority of the people of Taiwan call themselves "Taiwanese" only with the rest identifying as "Taiwanese and Chinese" or "Chinese" only. Most of the people of Taiwan are descendants of immigrants from mainland China since the 1600s, but the inclusion of Taiwan in the definition of China proper, is still a controversial subject. See History of Taiwan and Political status of Taiwan for more information.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

China proper

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
China proper, also termed Inner China or the Eighteen Provinces, refers to the historical core territory of Chinese civilization, encompassing the eastern and central lowland regions dominated by Han ethnic settlement, intensive agriculture, and riverine systems such as the and valleys. This area, bounded roughly by the Great Wall to the north, the to the west, and the to the east, served as the administrative, demographic, and cultural nucleus of successive Chinese dynasties, contrasting with sparsely populated frontier zones incorporated through conquest. During the (1644–1912), China proper was formalized as eighteen provinces—, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and —excluding outer dependencies like , , , and , which were governed separately as military protectorates rather than integrated provinces. These core provinces housed over 90% of the empire's despite comprising less than half its land area, enabling high agricultural productivity through flood-prone alluvial plains and that underpinned imperial stability and bureaucratic governance. The region's defining characteristics include its role as the cradle of ethnogenesis, Confucian statecraft, and technological innovations in rice cultivation, , and production, which fueled economic surpluses and centralized authority. However, this Sinic heartland's expansionist dynamics under dynasties like the Qing reveal causal patterns of imperial overreach, where incorporation of ethnically distinct peripheries—often through coercive assimilation policies—generated persistent tensions, as evidenced by recurrent rebellions and incomplete cultural homogenization beyond the core. In contemporary contexts, the distinction illuminates demographic realities, with over 94% of China's population concentrated in eastern provinces akin to historical China proper, underscoring the frontier character of western territories.

Etymology and Terminology

Origins of the Term

The term "China proper" originated in Western European geopolitical and cartographic discourse during the (1644–1912), specifically to distinguish the core territories—the eighteen administrative provinces—from the Manchu empire's outer dependencies, including , , , and . This usage reflected the Qing's administrative separation of the inherited Ming-era provinces, where Han settlement and Confucian bureaucracy dominated, from frontier regions governed via military banners, loose protectorates, or direct colonization. The provinces, formalized progressively from the late 17th to mid-18th centuries, included (modern ), , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , encompassing approximately 3.5 million square kilometers of fertile plains, river valleys, and highlands. Qing officials themselves employed analogous native terminology, such as neidi (内地, "interior lands") or shiba sheng (十八省, "eighteen provinces"), to denote these core areas in official edicts and memorials, emphasizing their distinction from wai fan (外藩, "outer vassals") like or bianjiang (边疆, "frontier marches"). European missionaries, traders, and diplomats, drawing from Jesuit reports and treaty negotiations starting in the late , adopted and popularized "China proper" (or "Inner China") by the early 19th century to convey this imperial dichotomy in languages like English and French, as seen in accounts of the and unequal treaties where territorial claims focused on the provinces. For instance, British and French maps from the onward delimited "China Proper" to exclude and highland extensions, aligning with Qing revenue systems that prioritized the provinces for taxation and grain tribute. The term's prevalence grew with 19th-century Western imperialism and , appearing in works like those of British surveyor John Barrow, who in 1804 described the "proper" empire as the eighteen provinces amid discussions of tribute and sovereignty. It encapsulated a causal recognition of ethnic Han demographic density (over 90% in the provinces by 1800) and cultural continuity from prior dynasties, versus the multi-ethnic, nomadic peripheries integrated post-1644 conquests. While not a direct of Chinese phrasing, "China proper" rendered the Qing's functional divide for foreign audiences, persisting into Republican-era geography until mid-20th-century nationalist redefinitions subsumed frontiers under a unitary "."

Chinese and Alternative Designations

The core historical regions of China proper are designated in Chinese as Zhōngguó běnbù (中国本部), literally "China's main section," a term adopted in the 19th century as a direct translation of the Western concept "China Proper" to distinguish the densely populated, Han-majority provinces from outer dependencies like Manchuria, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Mongolia incorporated during the Qing dynasty. This nomenclature arose amid encounters with European cartography and treaty negotiations, where it delineated the "innate" or traditional Chinese territory under Manchu administration, excluding areas viewed as recently conquered ethnic frontiers. An alternative indigenous term is Hàndì (汉地), or "Han territories," which emphasizes the ethnic and cultural predominance of populations in these central plains and river valleys, tracing back to Ming-era conceptions of the civilized core versus barbarian peripheries. During the Qing, nèidì (内地), meaning "interior lands," was also employed administratively to refer to the same provinces, contrasting them with wài fān (外藩) outer vassal states. In English-language and Western geographical literature, "China proper" remains the standard term, often synonymous with "Inner China" to highlight its role as the economic, demographic, and political heartland enclosed roughly by the Great Wall and major river systems. A precise Qing-era equivalent is "the Eighteen Provinces" (shíbā shěng, 十八省), comprising , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and (later ), formalized as the primary administrative units by 1662 and covering approximately 4 million square kilometers by the late . These designations underscore a historical binary between the sedentary, agrarian Han core and nomadic or frontier extensions, though their usage declined post-1912 with the Republican emphasis on territorial unity.

Historical Extent and Evolution

Pre-Qing Imperial Boundaries

The pre-Qing imperial boundaries of China proper referred to the core territories under direct administration by dynasties, centered on the densely populated riverine plains of eastern and central regions where agricultural productivity and Han settlement predominated. These areas, encompassing the , the middle and lower River basin, and adjacent highlands like the , formed the economic and demographic nucleus of successive empires from the Qin unification onward. Boundaries fluctuated with military fortunes but generally extended eastward to the , northward to the transitional zones with nomads along the Great Wall , westward to the rugged plateaus of the Tibetan frontier and highlands, and southward to the and . The (221–206 BCE) established the foundational extent by conquering the Warring States, consolidating control over approximately the valley, the region, and initial extensions into the and systems, creating a unified of about 40 million people under standardized administration across 36 commanderies. This core framework persisted through the (206 BCE–220 CE), which formalized direct rule over similar heartlands while incorporating frontier commanderies in the northwest and south, though these outer areas often reverted to tributary or nominal status post-dynastic peaks. Subsequent dynasties like the Sui (581–618) and Tang (618–907) maintained this central focus, with Tang expansions into and northern Vietnam representing temporary military outreaches rather than integral proper territories, as administrative emphasis remained on the guanzhong () heartland and eastern provinces. During periods of division, such as the (960–1279), China proper contracted to southern strongholds after northern losses to Liao and Jin, prioritizing the and defenses while administering 20-some circuits in the south, excluding steppe and desert fringes. The Mongol (1271–1368), though conquering the core, treated it as distinct from its Inner Asian base, delegating Han areas to branch secretariats that mirrored pre-conquest boundaries. The (1368–1644), restoring Han rule, reclaimed and stabilized the pre-Yuan extent, dividing it into 15 provinces including core eastern units like , , and , alongside semi-peripheral southwest provinces like ; its territorial outline—spanning roughly 4.5 million square kilometers at peak—provided the template for later delineations, with direct governance confined to settled agrarian zones east of the Pamirs and north of Annam.

Qing Dynasty Formalization and Distinctions

The , establishing control over Ming territories by , expanded the provincial system from fifteen to eighteen provinces, delineating China proper as the neidi or interior domain primarily inhabited by and governed through a centralized civil . These provinces—, , , , , , (), , , , , , , , , , , and —were administered by governors and governors-general appointed via the examination system, with fiscal and judicial authority concentrated in Beijing's Six Boards, particularly the Board of Rites (Libu) for routine Han affairs. This structure formalized boundaries through cadastral surveys initiated under the (r. 1661–1722), who commissioned maps and population registers to consolidate tax bases and military garrisons, distinguishing the densely cultivated eastern heartland from sparsely populated western and northern marches. A key distinction emerged in administrative treatment: while neidi provinces integrated Han agrarian society under routine bureaucratic oversight, outer dependencies (waifan or mengwai) such as , , and later were managed via parallel institutions to preserve ethnic hierarchies and Manchu dominance, preventing full assimilation that might erode banner loyalties. The Lifan Yuan, evolving from the early Menggu Yamun (established 1634 for Mongol affairs) and renamed in 1708 under Kangxi, was restructured by the (r. 1722–1735) into a dedicated agency for , handling , alliances, and pacification of non-Han groups without extending provincial civil rule. This separation, reinforced during the Qianlong Emperor's (r. 1735–1796) campaigns—conquering the Zunghar Khanate by 1759 and designating as a rather than a until 1884—ensured frontiers remained under banner armies and commissioners, limiting Han settlement to avoid cultural dilution and fiscal overextension. Such policies reflected causal priorities of dynastic stability: integrating core territories for revenue while containing nomadic threats through , as evidenced by edicts restricting Mongol incursions into neidi farmlands. These formalizations, documented in imperial gazetteers and edicts, underscored a dual governance model: neidi as the economic engine funding expansions, versus waifan as strategic buffers, with the Qianlong era's territorial peak—encompassing over 13 million square kilometers—yet maintaining administrative firewalls to sustain Manchu identity amid Han numerical superiority. Reforms under Yongzheng, including the creation of grand councils for coordinated oversight, further institutionalized distinctions, enabling efficient resource allocation without homogenizing diverse polities, though late-Qing pressures from rebellions and foreign incursions began eroding these lines by the .

Geographical and Administrative Definition

Core Provinces and Regions

The core provinces and regions of China proper historically encompass the eighteen provinces administered as the inner territories during the (1644–1912), distinct from outer dependencies such as , , , and . These provinces, known as the guannei shiba sheng (关内十八省), represented the densely populated heartland south of the Great Wall, formalized by the mid-18th century after administrative consolidations under emperors like Kangxi and Qianlong. This delineation emphasized agricultural productivity, cultural continuity from Ming precedents, and centralized fiscal control, with the provinces generating the bulk of imperial revenue through land taxes assessed via the Single Whip Reform's legacy. The eighteen provinces included: (modern , with portions forming and ), , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . While core areas like the (encompassing , , ) and the Yangtze River Delta (, , ) featured overwhelming Han majorities and intensive rice-wheat farming by the , peripheral provinces such as , , , and incorporated significant non-Han ethnic groups like Hui, Miao, and Zhuang, reflecting gradual through migration and governance rather than uniform ethnic homogeneity. Administrative boundaries evolved from Ming sheng (provinces) and bu (military circuits), with Qing additions like (1683–1885) sometimes counted separately before its brief provincial status, but the standard eighteen excluded it post-1885 demotion. These provinces formed the economic and demographic nucleus, housing approximately 90% of China's population by 1850 estimates, with staples like kaoliang in the north and double-cropping in the south supporting densities exceeding 100 persons per square kilometer in fertile basins. involved governors (xunfu) and lieutenant governors (buzhengshi), rotating appointments to prevent local entrenchment, a system that persisted into the Republican era until 1949 reconfigurations under the integrated some into autonomous regions. Debates persist on strict inclusion, as western Qing sources occasionally segregated "inner" fifteen provinces (excluding , , ) for their lesser frontier traits, yet official Qing gazetteers consistently enumerated all eighteen as integral to the imperial core.

Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion

The primary criteria for inclusion in China proper emphasize historical administrative continuity, predominant ethnic composition, and direct integration into the civilian provincial system originating from the and largely preserved under the Qing. These encompass the eighteen interior provinces—, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and (later divided)—which formed the densely populated agricultural core centered on the and river basins, supporting over 95% of the imperial-era Chinese population despite comprising only about one-third of the broader empire's territory. Regions meeting these standards exhibited sustained cultural , centralized tax and bureaucratic governance without special ethnic exemptions, and minimal nomadic or frontier characteristics, distinguishing them as the heartland of Chinese statecraft from the onward. Exclusion hinges on later incorporation via military conquest, distinct ethnic majorities, and alternative administrative frameworks that preserved local autonomy or tribal structures, such as the banner system for Manchu and Mongol garrisons. Territories like (the northeastern homeland of the Qing rulers, formalized as provinces only after 1907 amid Russian pressures), (conquered from the in 1759 and governed as a until 1884), (placed under Qing in 1720 with the retaining de facto rule), and both Inner and Outer (administered through Mongol leagues and banners rather than provinces) fail these tests due to their non-Han dominance—Manchu, Uyghur, Tibetan, and Mongol, respectively—and status as "outer dependencies" rather than core provinces. This demarcation reflects causal realities of imperial expansion: the Qing, as a Manchu , extended beyond the Ming's Han-centric boundaries but maintained formal distinctions to manage ethnic heterogeneity and prevent full assimilation of frontier elites. Borderline cases, such as or , incorporated during the Ming's westward pushes (e.g., Yunnan conquered in 1382), illustrate tensions in application; while provincially administered, their significant Hui, Tibetan, or Miao minorities and partial frontier traits have prompted scholarly debate over strict inclusion, often resolved by prioritizing pre-Qing Han settlement density over post-conquest formalities. Overall, these criteria underscore China proper as a construct rooted in empirical patterns and demographic realities, rather than maximalist territorial claims, enabling differentiation from the expansive but loosely held peripheries that comprised the Qing's multi-ethnic empire.

Ethnic and Demographic Realities

Han Chinese Dominance in the Core

The core of , encompassing the densely populated eastern and central provinces along the and River basins, exhibits near-total demographic dominance by the ethnic group. In these regions, Han populations routinely exceed 99% of the total, as evidenced by provincial figures. For example, Province records 99.6% Han residents, while Shandong Province stands at 99.3%. This contrasts sharply with the national average of 91.11% Han from the 2020 , diluted by substantial non-Han minorities in western and northern frontier areas excluded from the traditional definition of . Even in more inland core provinces like Hubei, Han Chinese comprise 95.2% of the population as of 2020, underscoring the ethnic homogeneity central to the region's historical and cultural identity. Such high concentrations result from long-term endogenous growth and limited external migration into these established heartlands, where Han settlement patterns have persisted since antiquity. Non-Han groups, primarily small Hui Muslim communities or scattered indigenous remnants, represent marginal presences, often fully integrated into Han-dominated social structures. This dominance has roots in historical expansions originating from the (206 BCE–220 CE), when agricultural advancements and imperial policies facilitated Han migration into fertile lowlands, gradually assimilating or marginalizing pre-existing populations. Subsequent dynasties reinforced this through processes, whereby non-Han groups adopted Han language, customs, and governance, effectively merging into the majority ethnicity over generations. Empirical demographic stability in the core today reflects the causal efficacy of these mechanisms, prioritizing cultural continuity and population density over ethnic pluralism.

Non-Han Presence and Historical Migrations

China proper, encompassing the traditional eighteen provinces, features a predominant population, with non-Han ethnic groups comprising a minority overall, though concentrated in peripheral areas such as , , , and . According to the 2020 national census, ethnic minorities account for 8.89% of China's total population, with higher proportions in certain provinces within China proper; for instance, has approximately 33% non-Han residents, including Yi (11%), Bai (3.6%), Hani (3.4%), Zhuang (2.7%), and (2.7%). Guizhou similarly hosts over 40 non-Han groups, such as Miao, Buyi, and Dong, making up about 37% of its population. The Hui, a Sino-Muslim group numbering around 10 million nationwide, represent a key non-Han presence dispersed across provinces like , where they form significant communities alongside Dongxiang and Tibetan minorities. Originating from intermarriages between and Muslim traders from Arabia, Persia, and who arrived during the (7th century) and later waves under the Yuan, the Hui adopted Chinese language and customs while retaining . In southern provinces, groups like the Zhuang in trace roots to ancient Tai-speaking peoples indigenous to the region, predating extensive Han expansion and evolving from confederations rather than large-scale northern migrations. Southwest minorities, including Miao and Yi, often stem from Tibeto-Burman or Hmong-Mien stocks that inhabited hilly terrains, with historical movements southward driven by Han agricultural encroachment rather than inbound non-Han influxes. Historical non-Han migrations into China proper were typically limited in scale, involving traders, military elites, or small settler groups rather than mass relocations; for example, Mongol and Manchu conquerors during the Yuan (1271–1368) and Qing (1644–1912) dynasties established ruling classes but saw minimal demographic penetration, with populations often confined to banner systems or urban enclaves. Over centuries, processes—through intermarriage, adoption of Confucian bureaucracy, and —integrated many non-Han elements into Han society, reducing distinct identities except where religious or geographic isolation preserved them, as with Hui or southwestern . This dynamic underscores causal patterns where Han demographic dominance and state policies favored absorption over persistent ethnic pluralism in the core territories.

Political Usage Across Eras

Republican Period Applications

During the Republican era (1912–1949), the term "China proper" persisted in geographical, administrative, and analytical contexts to denote the core eighteen provinces—historically the heartland of settlement and Qing inner administration—distinct from peripheral territories like , , , and . The Republic of China, established after the , constitutionally asserted sovereignty over all former Qing domains, promoting a multi-ethnic framework via Sun Yat-sen's ideology of the Five Races under One Union (Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui, and Tibetan), which aimed to integrate outer regions without ethnic exclusion. However, fragmented control initially limited central authority to parts of China proper, with unification efforts prioritizing these core areas. The (1926–1928), led by the (KMT) under , focused on consolidating power in China proper, defeating major and establishing nominal Nationalist governance over the eighteen provinces by 1928, while outer territories such as remained under local or foreign influence until Japan's 1931 . Economic and infrastructural data from the period often segregated China proper from resource-extraction zones like ; for instance, manufacturing growth analyses highlighted light industries in the core provinces versus development in the northeast during 1931–1936. Statistical reports on electric power capacity similarly delimited China proper, estimating its national product share as minimal compared to global totals, underscoring developmental disparities. In military and diplomatic usage, the distinction sharpened during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) and subsequent . Allied Supreme Commander in 1945 directed Japanese forces in China proper to surrender solely to Nationalist authorities, separating this from under Soviet influence. U.S. State Department assessments tracked Communist gains, noting control over and most of China proper north of the by late 1948, reflecting strategic prioritization of the densely populated core. Thus, while official rhetoric emphasized territorial wholeness, "China proper" practically delineated zones of denser governance, population, and conflict intensity, informing both internal policy and international perceptions of Republican viability.

People's Republic of China Approach

The (PRC) does not recognize or employ the term "China proper" in its official administrative, legal, or historiographical frameworks, instead framing the nation as a singular, indivisible multi-ethnic state encompassing all territories under central authority since antiquity. This approach stems from the PRC Constitution, which defines China as a unitary country comprising multiple ethnic groups united under the leadership of the (CCP), with no formal distinction between core Han-dominated regions and historical frontiers. The emphasis on rejects any implication that peripheral areas like or were extrinsic additions, portraying them instead as integral to China's civilizational continuity. In PRC historiography, dynastic narratives integrate frontier regions into a unified Chinese historical arc, reinterpreting imperial expansions—such as the Qing conquests—as extensions of a multi-ethnic rather than colonial overlays on a Han core. Official texts, such as those from the Chinese Academy of History, assert that areas beyond the traditional eighteen provinces were under Chinese suzerainty or for millennia, countering Western or Republican-era distinctions that confined "China proper" to the and river basins. This framing supports irredentist claims, as evidenced by assertions that has been Chinese territory since the (206 BCE–220 CE), despite archaeological evidence of alternating indigenous Turkic and Mongol polities. Such prioritizes causal continuity of central governance over ethnic or geographic separatism, though critics note it aligns with CCP policies of , including mandatory Mandarin education and demographic shifts in autonomous regions. Administratively, the PRC divides its territory into 23 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, 4 municipalities, and 2 special administrative regions, with the provinces—such as Hebei, Shandong, and Sichuan—overlapping historically with China proper's Han-majority heartland, comprising about 92% of the national population per the 2020 census. Autonomous regions (e.g., Xinjiang Uyghur, Tibetan) designate nominal ethnic self-governance for minorities but operate under the same hierarchical CCP structure, with prefectural and county levels mirroring provincial ones; in practice, Han migration has elevated ethnic Han to majorities in regions like Xinjiang (42% Uyghur vs. 39% Han as of 2020). This system facilitates uniform economic integration, as seen in the Belt and Road Initiative's infrastructure projects linking core provinces to frontiers, without privileging any as "proper." Policy implementation reinforces this unitary approach through mechanisms like the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law (, amended 2001), which grants limited cultural concessions to minorities while mandating loyalty to the and prohibiting . Empirical data from state reports indicate over 95% Han dominance in provincial governance roles, extending to autonomous areas via cadre training programs that prioritize political reliability over ethnic representation. Debates within PRC occasionally reference "interior" (neidi) vs. distinctions for developmental planning—e.g., transferring 2.8 million surplus laborers from core provinces to border areas between 1950–1980—but these are framed as internal optimizations, not validations of historical "China proper" exclusivity. Overall, this approach sustains territorial claims amid international scrutiny, with state investments exceeding 1 trillion yuan (about $140 billion USD) annually in stability by 2023.

Contemporary Significance and Debates

Demographic and Economic Data

![Ethnolinguistic map of China 1983.jpg][float-right] The traditional eighteen provinces constituting encompass a population of approximately 1.25 billion people as of 2023, accounting for the vast majority of 's total mainland of 1.4097 billion. These provinces include core Han-dominated regions such as , , and , where densities exceed 400 people per square kilometer in many areas, driven by fertile plains and historical settlement patterns. Ethnically, China proper features near-total dominance, with Han comprising over 98 percent of the population in provinces like , , and , in contrast to the national average of 91.6 percent where minorities are more prevalent in frontier autonomous regions. rates in these core areas significantly surpass the national figure of 66.16 percent, with coastal provinces such as , , and exceeding 75 percent, reflecting rapid migration to industrial and service hubs since economic reforms. Economically, China proper generates the preponderance of national output, with its provinces contributing over 85 percent of China's 2023 GDP of 126.058 trillion yuan, as frontier regions like and account for less than 2 percent combined due to lower development levels. Key drivers include manufacturing and exports in the east, where recorded 13.57 trillion yuan in GDP, followed by at 13.70 trillion yuan and at 9.21 trillion yuan, underscoring the region's role in high-value industries like and automobiles. GDP in these advanced provinces often doubles the national average of around 89,400 yuan, highlighting internal disparities even within China proper.
ProvincePopulation (millions, est. 2022)GDP (trillion yuan, 2023)Urbanization Rate (%, 2023 est.)
Guangdong126.613.57>75
Jiangsu85.113.70>75
Shandong101.69.21~65-70
Zhejiang~659.01>75
Henan~995.91~55
This table illustrates the economic concentration in eastern China proper provinces, where combined GDP rivals major global economies, supported by infrastructure investments and labor mobility from interior areas.

Scholarly and International Perspectives

In historical scholarship, "China proper" is delineated as the core territories historically dominated by sedentary agriculture and Confucian governance, typically encompassing the eighteen provinces of the —such as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and —excluding the steppe and highland frontiers like , , , and . This distinction, rooted in Qing administrative practices where neidi (inner lands) were differentiated from outer dependencies (wai fan), facilitates analysis of China's imperial expansion as analogous to European colonialism rather than organic cultural extension. Scholars associated with the paradigm, including Mark C. Elliott and Pamela Kyle Crossley, argue that emphasizing China proper reveals the Qing as a of Manchu origin, integrating Inner Asian elements and administering frontiers through and systems, rather than a mere continuation of Han-centric Ming rule. This view challenges traditional sinocentric narratives by highlighting ethnic and institutional discontinuities, such as limited Han settlement in frontiers until the late , supported by Qing archival records showing frontier garrisons outnumbered civilian migrants by ratios exceeding 10:1 in regions like prior to 1884. Critics within Chinese academia, often aligned with state , contend that the "China proper" framework artificially fragments a unified Zhongguo (Central States) civilization, ignoring evidence of and imperial legitimacy across frontiers, as evidenced by campaigns into by 100 BCE and Tang expansions into by the 8th century. Empirical demographic data from Qing censuses indicate Han populations exceeding 90% in proper provinces by 1850, contrasting with under 20% in and , underscoring causal differences in governance rooted in ecological and ethnic realities rather than ideological unity. Western scholars like , in pre-1949 works, applied frontier theory to portray China proper as a civilizational hearth buffered by nomadic buffers, influencing post-colonial analyses of sovereignty claims. This perspective persists in debates over dynastic continuity, where probabilistic reasoning from settlement patterns and administrative autonomy suggests frontiers were conditionally held rather than inalienably core, a position contested by PRC-aligned researchers citing multi-ethnic edicts like the Kangxi emperor's 1690s recognitions of . Internationally, the concept garners limited diplomatic traction, as most states adhere to principles post-1949, recognizing PRC borders inclusive of frontiers under the one-China policy formalized in UN Resolution 2758 (1971), despite scholarly distinctions. Foreign policy analyses, such as those from , frame China proper's economic primacy—accounting for over 90% of imperial GDP in the due to and basins— as shaping modern , where frontier integration post-1949 reflects rather than historical inevitability. European Sinologists, drawing from Jesuit maps like those of (1602), historically viewed China proper as the Sinic realm bounded by the Great Wall, a delineation echoed in 19th-century confined to coastal provinces. Contemporary scholarship, including studies, posits that rejecting "China proper" in Beijing's doctrine serves causal security imperatives, equating frontier secession risks with existential threats, as articulated in 2023 analyses of as a residual frontier zone. This divergence highlights source credibility issues, with Western academic works privileging archival pluralism over state narratives potentially influenced by nationalist imperatives.

Controversies and Alternative Viewpoints

Implications for Frontier Sovereignty Claims

The concept of China proper, denoting the historical core of Han Chinese settlement and direct administrative control encompassing approximately the eighteen provinces of the Qing dynasty's inner regions, underscores debates regarding the legitimacy of contemporary Chinese sovereignty assertions over peripheral territories. These frontiers, including Tibet, Xinjiang, and initially Taiwan, were incorporated through conquest or tributary relations rather than as extensions of the ethnic Han heartland, with Qing rule often characterized by indirect governance via local elites or military garrisons rather than full integration. Early 20th-century Chinese nationalists, adapting Western notions of nationhood, fabricated historical justifications to subsume these areas into a unified "Chinese" territory, departing from earlier proposals to confine the republic to China proper for ethnic purity. This constructed narrative informs People's Republic of China (PRC) policies, yet empirical historical records reveal discontinuous control, such as Tibet's de facto independence from 1912 to 1950 following the Qing collapse, during which the Dalai Lama's government issued currency, passports, and maintained foreign relations. In Tibet, Qing post-1720 involved nominal overlordship without effective , evidenced by the 13th Dalai Lama's 1913 and British-Tibetan treaties like the 1914 Simla Accord recognizing Tibetan , which rejected but could not enforce. The PRC's 1950 invasion and the coerced of 1951 marked the imposition of direct rule, transforming a into claimed integral territory, a shift critics attribute to strategic buffering of proper rather than inherent rights. Similarly, Xinjiang's incorporation followed Qing campaigns in 1759, but recurrent revolts, including the East Turkestan Islamic Republic (1933–1934) and (1944–1949), alongside Russian and later Soviet influence, highlight fragile control until PRC consolidation in 1949. These episodes suggest regions functioned as buffers or loosely held marches, not core domains, challenging PRC assertions of millennia-old rooted in dynastic extent. Taiwan exemplifies frontier incorporation dynamics, designated a Qing prefecture in 1683 and province in 1885, yet treated as an outer periphery until Japanese cession in 1895; its 1945 return to the Republic of China post-World War II preceded civil war division, framing PRC reunification demands as reclaiming a historical frontier rather than an ancient province of China proper. Proponents of distinction argue that equating imperial conquests with modern sovereignty undermines self-determination principles under international law, particularly for non-Han majorities in frontiers comprising over 50% of PRC land area but less than 10% of population. Conversely, Beijing maintains that differential historical administration reflects adaptive governance, not separable entities, with effective control since the mid-20th century validating claims amid geopolitical imperatives like resource access and border security. Scholarly analyses, often sidelined in PRC-dominated discourse due to institutional biases favoring unitary narratives, posit that reverting to China proper boundaries could resolve irredentist tensions but risks unraveling the multi-ethnic state construct.

Debates on Dynastic Continuity and Multi-Ethnic Narratives

Scholars debate the extent to which non-Han dynasties like the Mongol-led Yuan (1271–1368) and Manchu-led Qing (1644–1912) represent genuine continuity in Chinese imperial history or instead constitute foreign conquests superimposed on the Han-dominated core of China proper. Traditional , as reflected in dynastic records, incorporates these periods into a linear narrative of imperial succession via the , portraying rulers as legitimate successors despite ethnic differences. However, comparative analyses argue that such inclusion overlooks the conquest nature of these regimes, where non-Han elites imposed hierarchical ethnic segregation—placing or Manchus at the apex above Han subjects—and extracted tribute without full , treating China proper as a subjugated territory akin to other peripheral domains. For instance, during the Yuan, were relegated to the lowest social stratum, barred from military roles and subjected to discriminatory laws, with Mongol governance prioritizing nomadic traditions over Confucian norms. The Qing dynasty, lasting 268 years, exhibited partial institutional continuity by adopting Ming bureaucratic structures and Confucian examinations, yet preserved distinct Manchu identity through the Eight Banners system, which segregated ethnic Manchus and maintained privileges like exemption from certain taxes and prohibitions on Han-Manchu intermarriage in elite circles until the late 19th century. Resistance from Han populations, including Ming loyalist movements that persisted into the 1680s, underscores perceptions of foreign occupation rather than seamless dynastic transition, with an estimated 25 million deaths during the Ming-Qing transition due to warfare and famine. Proponents of continuity emphasize Sinicization processes, such as the Qing emperors' patronage of Han scholarship and territorial administration centered on the 18 provinces of China proper, but critics contend this masks underlying ethnic dualism, where Manchu rulers viewed themselves as conquerors ruling a distinct Han realm. Approximately half of imperial China's recorded history involved non-Han rule over parts or all of the core, challenging notions of unbroken Han-centric sovereignty. Multi-ethnic narratives in contemporary historiography, particularly those promoted by the People's Republic of China (PRC), frame these dynasties as evidence of an enduring multi-ethnic "Chinese nation" (zhonghua minzu) integrating diverse groups since antiquity, retroactively including Yuan and Qing expansions as organic to a unified polity encompassing Han and non-Han peoples. This view posits dynastic continuity through shared imperial institutions and territorial inheritance, downplaying conquest origins to support modern claims over frontiers like Xinjiang and Tibet. In contrast, Han-centric perspectives, rooted in empirical demographic data showing China proper's population as over 90% Han throughout most imperial eras, argue that non-Han dynasties represented episodic overlays on a fundamentally Han cultural and political core, with limited bidirectional assimilation—Manchus adopted administrative tools but resisted full cultural erasure, while Han elites accommodated rulers pragmatically without ethnic fusion. The "New Qing History" school, drawing on Manchu-language archives, reinforces this by portraying the Qing as a multi-ethnic empire prioritizing Manchu steppe heritage over Sinicization, rather than a linear extension of Han dynasties, though PRC-influenced scholarship critiques such interpretations as fragmenting national unity. These debates highlight tensions between state-sponsored narratives emphasizing cohesion and historical analyses prioritizing ethnic distinctions and causal sequences of conquest.

References

  1. https://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/geo/proper.htm
  2. https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/geog/maps.htm
  3. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/concept-of-greater-china-themes-variations-and-reservations/FAED34F84F7A8CF25CB3328991218293
  4. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hcc-worldgeography/chapter/10-1-introducing-the-realm/
  5. https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/bfhzoi/the_boundary_of_china_proper/
  6. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/18-provinces.htm
  7. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:EB1911_-_Volume_06.djvu/179
  8. http://dianda.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=7103341665
  9. http://dianda.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=669459547
  10. https://repository.brynmawr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=eastasian_pubs
  11. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/cmt-40/OldFiles/Nice/Transfer/Chinese/wikilex-20070908-zh-en.txt
  12. https://www.cepii.fr/pdf_pub/wp/2014/wp2014-04.pdf
  13. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=ha100591129
  14. https://zoo.cs.yale.edu/classes/cs223/current-s2017/hws/2023-spring/books/500mb/files/2076/2076.txt
  15. https://fairbank.fas.harvard.edu/research/blog/the-great-unity-debate/
  16. https://www.academia.edu/63808236/The_Construction_of_Territories_in_the_Qin_Empire
  17. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Qing/qing-admin.html
  18. https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/qing/emperors.html
  19. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/display/title/32688.pdf
  20. https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/saksaha/article/id/4215/
  21. https://academic.oup.com/book/39071/chapter/338396686
  22. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-01617A002600100001-1.pdf
  23. https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/chinas-core-regions
  24. https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/qing/state.html
  25. https://golden.com/wiki/China_proper-K3DV8
  26. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/china-proper
  27. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/the-legacy-of-the-chinese-empires-beyond-the-west-and-the-rest/
  28. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/89783/bhlee_1.pdf
  29. https://www.asiaharvest.org/china-resources/jiangsu
  30. https://www.asiaharvest.org/china-resources/shandong/introduction-to-shandong-province
  31. https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202105/t20210510_1817185.html
  32. https://www.fohb.gov.cn/list/overview_of_hubei/index.html
  33. https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-China/The-Han-dynasty
  34. https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat15/sub101/item455.html
  35. https://www.britannica.com/place/Guizhou/People
  36. https://history-commons.net/artifacts/18914447/country-advice/19815003/
  37. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hui-people
  38. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/tracing-muslim-roots-a-brief-history-of-the-hui/
  39. https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/history-culture/buddhism-islam-advanced/history-of-the-hui-muslims-of-china
  40. https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat5/sub30/item185.html
  41. https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-148
  42. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/40215/chapter/344571501
  43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45335810
  44. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-republic-of-china-in-historical-perspective/
  45. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79-01093A000700080001-3.pdf
  46. https://www.britannica.com/event/Chinese-Civil-War
  47. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P1590.pdf
  48. https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-China/The-early-republican-period
  49. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v09/d591
  50. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1950-55Intel/d98
  51. https://madeinchinajournal.com/2024/07/11/securitising-history-reimagining-and-reshaping-the-imagined-community-in-chinas-new-era/
  52. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/uploads/documents/2024-WCF_Glasserman.pdf
  53. http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/china_abc/2014/08/27/content_281474983873401.htm
  54. https://strategicspace.nbr.org/the-qing-conception-of-strategic-space/
  55. https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202402/t20240228_1947918.html
  56. https://demographia.com/db-chinaregrank.htm
  57. https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/china-ethnicgroups.html
  58. https://www.sgtimes.com/2025/06/01/the-urbanization-rate-of-10-provinces-in-china-exceeds-70/
  59. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202402/06/WS65c163c1a3104efcbdae9d12.html
  60. https://data.stats.gov.cn/english/easyquery.htm?cn=E0103
  61. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-2023-economic-growth-breakdown-gdp-statistics-and-targets-by-province/
  62. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/elliott/files/critical_han_studies_ch8_elliott.pdf
  63. https://dspace.allegheny.edu/bitstreams/5a510228-13bc-4ed9-84d3-dbc891065f0e/download
  64. https://journals.gmu.edu/whc/article/view/4945/2886
  65. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/897979
  66. https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/50/1/46/132729/What-Does-China-Want
  67. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/fusing-a-perspective-on-historical-development-into-strategic-studies-the-case-of-northeast-asia/
  68. https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/bill-hayton-on-the-invention-of-the-chinese-nation/
  69. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/question-tibet
  70. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/165109/IB220-Abanti-ChinaPeriphery-Tibet.pdf
  71. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/empires-and-exchanges-in-eurasian-late-antiquity/chinese-and-inner-asian-perspectives-on-the-history-of-the-northern-dynasties-386589-in-chinese-historiography/185484765FBF5741365097BCCFA70FF0
  72. https://tibetpolicy.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Dmitriev-SV-Kuzmin-2016-Conquest-Dynasties-of-China-or-Foreign-Empires.pdf
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312238045_Periods_of_Non-Han_Rule
  74. https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/2723/galley/19556/view/
  75. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/limits-of-universal-rule/expansion-of-the-qing-empire-before-1800/1230549154C40743055F4E4A8DA03720
  76. https://brill.com/view/journals/joch/10/3/article-p217_4.xml
  77. https://ijae.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41257-017-0001-z
  78. https://ijae.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41257-025-00140-y
  79. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/hancentrism-and-multiethnic-nationbuilding-in-china-and-taiwan-a-comparative-study-since-1911/4C021E89DF6D660AFF58C50CE53D02C8
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.