Cited by 27Chinese history and philosophyCultural and Mythological StudiesIndian and Buddhist Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

MING T'AI-TSU AND THE GODS OF THE WALLS AND MOATS

Taylor, Romeyn·1977·Ming Studies

Abstract

In an earlier article, I cited Chu Yuan-chang's relations with his nobility of merit as evidence that contrary tendencies in political organization, feudalistic and despotic respectively, may have predominated in the earlier and later stages of the bottom-to-top process of the formation of the Ming imperial state. The Ming founder's parallel management of his relations with the popular gods of the walls and moats offers a context within which to consider the process of dynastic founding under the aspect of religious belief and practice.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1179/014703777788765544

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Taylor, R.
Corresponding author
Taylor, Romeyn
Venue
Ming Studies
Published
1977-01
Volume
1977
Issue
1
Pages
31-50
ISSN
  • 0147-037X (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-7595
OpenAlex
W1983826739
Cited by
27
References
0
Citations by year
2018: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ming Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Chinese history and philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › General Arts and Humanities › Cultural and Mythological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
Keywords
Ming Taizu, Zhu Yuanzhang, religious beliefs, Ming dynasty

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