The idea that the Song experienced an economic (or monetary, financial, commercial) “revolution” has gained broad currency in the historiography. One key development was the monetization of the economy, including the introduction of paper currency, used along with various kinds of metal currencies for all kinds of commercial transactions and even tax payments. The role of the state was crucial, both in providing infrastructure for transportation and distribution networks and in implementing policies that supported merchant entrepreneurs and promoted the development of agriculture through the introduction of new technologies and new crops. Farmers specialized in the production of certain commodities, and ceramics, textiles, and other goods were also produced for the marketplace. Both urban and rural markets proliferated, and new kinds of merchant enterprises accompanied this commercial growth. The expansion of shipbuilding and advances in both shipbuilding and navigational technology supported the growth of maritime trade. Commercial relations with Japan and Korea in particular also fostered cultural connections: the transmission of religion, books, and other cultural commodities went along with silks, foodstuffs, metals, and aromatics. Despite ongoing political and military conflicts between them, overland border trade continued between Song and its northern nomadic neighbors to supply essential and luxury goods.

At the turn of the twentieth century, Chinese scholars eager to assimilate the historical sciences of the West and incorporate their history into universal historical narratives readily adopted the tripartite periodization of Western civilization divided into ancient, medieval, and modern epochs. This framework of linear, stadial progression toward modernity offered liberal intellectuals in China the promise of emancipation from China’s stultifying past and rebirth as full citizens in a modern world of equal nation-states. Marxist scholars invoked a parallel tripartite periodization divided into slave, feudal, and capitalist epochs, but adapted to accentuate the defining feature of Chinese history: the rise of a “bureaucratic, centralized feudal state” that fostered “economic stagnation” throughout the longue durée of the imperial era, from the first universal empire of Qin in the third century bce to the irruption of Western imperialism in the nineteenth century.1 The ideas of “oriental stagnation” and the “Asiatic mode of production” likewise inflected Western historiography on China, and the notion of an unchanging “traditional China” prior to the advent of the West in the post-Opium War era predominated in Western scholarship on Chinese history down to the 1970s.