Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
KweeHuiKian Co o a iv rat ia , eS tu s di e o f As th Af a ic a nd th e 2 7 .N o 15 / Ea 7 2 1xiv 7 - 03 res ol. V o d 3 ,2 .12 i10 07 0 92 108 ke hen central hioal issues regarding late ierial China are juxtaposed with those on early modern Southea Asia, a very intereing peculiarity, almo an oxymoron, presents itself. As Sinologis preoccupy themselves with queions on why China fell, or, more precisely, fell back behind Weern Europe, various scholars are ruck by the general Chinese economic success in the hiory of Southea Asia. The situation is an indication of how far both fields of udy â early modern Southea Asia and late ierial southea China â have ignored each other. In the English-language scholarship, the udy of the hiory of Asia is generally broken up into area udies as Northea Asia, Southea Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, and so on, where academics tend to become specialis in one or two countries in each sphere of udy. With regard to China and Southea Asia, various hiorians like Hsu Yun-chiao, Chen Ching-ho,
Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East – Duke University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2007
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.