How Large Was Ancient China?

Back to contents

Previously, we discussed the concept of "China" and how it evolved over more than three millennia to become the formal name of our nation. But what exactly was the process of this evolution? And how large was ancient China? These are questions that people often ask.

When we study, learn about, or explain the history of ancient China, we need to define a specific scope. It is insufficient to determine the boundaries of China solely based on how large people at the time perceived it to be. For example, when studying the history of the Shang Dynasty, we cannot limit our research to the capital of the Shang Dynasty, even though the people of that time referred to it as "China." We must study the entire Shang Dynasty, including its ruled territory, its interactions with surrounding areas, and those who dealt with it. Thus, "China" is, in fact, a concept defined by later generations.

In the 1950s and 1960s, my teacher, Professor Tan Qixiang, was tasked with compiling and drawing The Historical Atlas of China. He encountered the problem of how extensive the coverage of each map should be for different historical periods, from primitive society to the Qing Dynasty. What range should be depicted to reflect the history of ancient China?

For written works, this is easier as descriptions can provide explanations. However, maps require a specific spatial scope. Where should the northern, southern, eastern, and western boundaries be? There must be precise definitions. Moreover, there was no existing methodology for delineating such a concept. Initially, Tan was assigned to "revise and redraw" Yang Shoujing's Maps of Successive Dynasties, published in the late Qing and early Republican periods. However, Yang's approach was rooted in traditional concepts. "Successive dynasties" referred only to specific historical dynasties, such as the Han or Tang, and he only mapped the territory controlled by these dynasties. He did not include the regimes established by non-Han ethnic groups or border regions outside the central dynasties. Consequently, some areas within today's Chinese territory were omitted. If Tan were to continue using Yang's approach, the historical contributions of various ethnic groups to the formation of Chinese history would not be fully reflected.

Some suggested that since this was a historical atlas of China, the maps should depict the territory of the People's Republic of China. However, this suggestion was clearly unfeasible and did not align with historical facts. For instance, over a million square kilometers of land north of the Heilongjiang River, east of the Ussuri River, and in northwestern Xinjiang were ceded to Tsarist Russia. Similarly, over a million square kilometers of Outer Mongolia, which were territories of the Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China, were only recognized as independent in 1946. If the maps were limited to the territory of the People's Republic of China, these changes would not be evident, nor would they reflect the facts of Chinese history.

Additionally, historical China, even excluding regimes established by non-Han peoples, encompassed territories beyond today’s boundaries. For example, during the Han Dynasty, its territory included central Korea and northern and central Vietnam. At its peak, the Tang Dynasty’s western frontier extended to the Aral Sea. The Yuan Dynasty also controlled vast areas outside today’s borders. Limiting maps to modern China would leave the maps of the Han, Tang, Yuan, and almost all other central dynasties incomplete, thus failing to represent the spatial scope of Chinese history accurately. This suggestion was quickly rejected.

Another proposal was to use Yang's approach, mapping only the territory controlled and governed by the central dynasties at the time. For instance, maps of the Han Dynasty would only depict its governed areas, regardless of how far they extended beyond modern China's boundaries. The same would apply to the Tang and Yuan. However, this method also failed to reflect the historical reality, particularly the contributions of various ethnic groups and border regimes to Chinese history.

Until the Qing Dynasty achieved unification, some areas within today's Chinese territory, such as the Tibetan Plateau, were not under the control of central dynasties. Tibet became part of the Yuan Dynasty in the mid-13th century when the Mongols unified it. If maps only depicted central dynasties, regions like Tibet would be excluded from pre-Yuan maps, making it impossible to illustrate the shared contributions of various ethnic groups to Chinese history.

Before the mid-13th century, Tibetan people and their regimes had long interacted and even clashed with central dynasties and other ethnic groups of China. The relationships between Tibetan Plateau peoples and central dynasties were undoubtedly part of Chinese history. For instance, the Tang Dynasty’s relationship with Tibet, whether in friendly marriage alliances like Songtsen Gampo and Princess Wencheng or in conflicts and counter-expansions, as well as Tibet’s interactions with Nanzhao, Dali, Xinjiang, and Central Asia, were all significant aspects of Chinese history. Maps that only showed Tang territory would omit these events, presenting an incomplete history and ignoring the contributions of non-central dynasties and border regimes to Chinese history.

After extensive research, consultation with historians and related academic fields, and approval from the central authorities, Professor Tan established the principle: The territorial scope of China from the mid-18th century, after the Qing Dynasty achieved unification in 1759, until the mid-19th century before the imperialist invasions, represents the historical development of China’s territory. All ethnic groups active within this range during historical periods are considered part of Chinese history, and their regimes are regarded as part of historical China.

Specifically, the unified territory established in 1759 during Emperor Qianlong’s reign, after pacifying the regions south and north of the Tianshan Mountains, serves as the historical benchmark. This territory extended from the Outer Xing’an Mountains, Ergune River, and Mongolian Plateau in the north, to Lake Balkhash and the Pamir Plateau in the west, including the southern border and South China Sea islands, and to the Pacific in the east, including Sakhalin, later occupied by Tsarist Russia. This scope, encompassing about 13 million square kilometers, is the historical extent of China.

This range was not chosen because it was the largest. Although the Qing Dynasty’s unified territory was indeed substantial, larger territories existed, such as the Tang Dynasty, whose western boundary once reached the Aral Sea, or the Han Dynasty, which included most of Vietnam and parts of the Korean Peninsula. The Qing’s territory was chosen because it represents a culmination of thousands of years of historical development. Additionally, while some dynasties controlled larger territories, the Qing Dynasty was the only one to implement effective governance throughout its domain.

For territories beyond the Qing’s unified range, historical maps and studies adapt based on the context. For example, maps of the Han Dynasty include parts of present-day Vietnam and Korea, while maps of the Tang Dynasty extend westward to the Aral Sea. Similarly, for regimes established by non-Han peoples or border regimes straddling this boundary, the political center serves as the main criterion. For instance, the Koguryo regime, which straddled Northeast China and the Korean Peninsula, was considered part of Chinese history before its capital moved to Pyongyang. After this relocation, it was treated as an external regime.

Thus, to determine the historical extent of China, one standard is the unified territory of the Qing Dynasty after 1759, covering about 13 million square kilometers. Another standard is based on the historical concept of China, encompassing the territories of central dynasties, their interactions with non-Han regimes, and regions yet to be governed. This is a complex task since territorial boundaries varied across dynasties and even within the same dynasty.

The most convenient way to explore this is by referring to The Historical Atlas of China, edited by Professor Tan Qixiang and published by the China Cartographic Publishing House. This eight-volume series includes general maps for each historical period, depicting territorial changes over time, and detailed sectional maps for specific areas. There is also a concise version, A Concise Atlas of Chinese History, which compiles the general maps into one volume, with descriptions outlining the formation and changes of each period’s territory, administrative divisions, and historical context. It also includes an index of place names, making it highly practical for study.