The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Boundaries, Maps, and Movement: Chinese, Russian, and Mongolian Empires in Early Modern Central Eurasia
Abstract
Comparative responses to global processes that affected China and the other early modern empires. Central Eurasia during the seventeent and eighteenth centuries offers one important site because three agrarian states contended for power: the Muscovite/Russian empire, expanding eastwards across Siberia; the Manchu Qing expanding first south-east, then northwest into the Central Asian steppes, deserts, and oases; and the Mongolian empire of the Zunghars, who created an autonomous state in western Mongolia, Turkestan, and Tibet. Although, between the mid-seventeenth and the mid-eighteenth centuries, the Zunghars rivalled Russian and Chinese power, by 1760 the Qing had crushed the state and exterminated the Zunghar people. The Qing then established permanent control, which lasted until the fall of the empire in 1911, over all of present-day Mongolia (Inner and Outer), Xinjiang, and Tibet. The elimination of a powerful, independent Mongol-nomadic state in the steppe was a world-historical event. The closure of the steppe frontier meant the end of an age of fluidity, ecumenical exchange, fighting, and shifting of boundaries, and the division, dispersal, and extermination of the Mongols, who are now scattered from the Volga river to North China, one of the widest involuntary diasporas to occur on the continent. The outcome was the bipolar division of Central Asia between two empires, marked by a border delimited in treaty negotiations between the Chinese and the Russians. The bipolar division effectively lasted from 1760 until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Outer Mongolia, despite proclaiming its independence in 1911, became a Soviet satellite under Red Army occupation in 1921.1 The division persists conceptually in the terminology generally used to describe the broad, physiographically unbounded region lying between
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Peter Perdue has recently pointed out what should be obvious: the Qing emperors from Kangxi on who commissioned their court Jesuits to conduct surveys and draw large maps were indulging in imperial cartography towards many of the same ideological ends (and with many of the same means) as their European counterparts.”
From "Coming onto the Map": "Western Regions" Geography and Cartographic Nomenclature in the Making of Chinese Empire in Xinjiang (1999) · cites this paper as Perdue 1998
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Millward, J. A. (1999) · Late Imperial China · doi:10.1353/late.1999.0008 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Perdue, P. C.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Perdue, Peter C.
- ORCID
- Perdue, Peter C.
- Venue
- The International History Review
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 263-286
- ISSN
- 0707-5332 (ISSN-L)
- 1949-6540
- OpenAlex
- W2050590601
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 8.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The International History Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Eurasian Exchange Networks
- Social Sciences › Demography › Migration, Health, Geopolitics, Historical Geography
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Chinese history and philosophy
- Keywords
- Qing dynasty, Russian Empire, Muscovite expansion, Central Eurasia, steppe frontier, imperial boundaries, Outer Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, nomadic empires, early modern empires, 17th-18th century
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Boundaries, Maps, and Movement: Chinese, Russian, and Mongolian Empires in Early Modern Central Eurasia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07075332.1998.9640823
- The paper
- Perdue, P. C. (1998). Boundaries, Maps, and Movement: Chinese, Russian, and Mongolian Empires in Early Modern Central Eurasia. The International History Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1998.9640823