Ancient China — from Shang to Han

Intuition Beginner

The companion unit 32.05.01 tells you what happened across the Shang, Zhou, Qin, and Han dynasties. This unit asks the harder questions. Why did a civilisation that invented paper, the compass, and cast iron not undergo an industrial revolution eighteen hundred years before Europe did? Why did the harsh Qin state last only fifteen years while the Han, which copied most of its machinery, lasted four hundred? The two questions turn out to be connected.

China is unusual among ancient civilisations because it kept a single continuous written language, a single script tradition, and a single state idea across more than three thousand years. A official trained in the Han court could, with effort, read Shang oracle bones from a thousand years earlier. A scholar in 1800 CE could read Han memorials in the original. This continuity is the result of a political choice made in 221 BCE and refined under the Han: one script, one bureaucracy, one canon of texts, one examination path into office.

The state ideas built in this period did not stay in China. Korea, Japan, and Vietnam all adopted versions of the Chinese bureaucracy, the Confucian curriculum, and the examination system. When a Korean king in the fifteenth century wanted literate officials, he tested them on the Chinese classics. The Han model became the default operating system for an entire region, and that is why understanding the Shang-to-Han sequence matters beyond China itself.

Visual Beginner

Object	Date	What it tells us
Oracle-bone inscriptions, Anyang	circa 1200-1046 BCE	The earliest substantial Chinese writing; pyromantic divination by the Shang king
Zhou mandate of heaven doctrine	from circa 1046 BCE	Rule is conditional on moral performance; the load-bearing idea of Chinese political thought
Confucius (Analects)	551-479 BCE	Reciprocal obligation as the remedy for Warring-States disorder
Qin unification, standardisation	221-206 BCE	One script, one weight, one axle, one law; the machinery the Han inherited
Han Confucian state + recruitment	formalised under Emperor Wu, circa 124 BCE	The synthesis that governed China for two millennia
Han census	2 CE	57.7 million registered persons in 12.3 million households
Paper (Cai Lun)	105 CE	The invention that rewrote the economics of literacy and administration
Seismograph (Zhang Heng)	132 CE	A bronze vessel that detected the direction of distant earthquakes

Figure: the Shang-to-Han sequence as the layer on which all later Chinese statecraft rests, with three inventions at the centre of the Needham great-divergence question.

Worked example Beginner

Numbers fix the scale of what the Qin and Han built. Qin Shi Huangdi completed the unification of the Warring States in 221 BCE. Count back the Warring States period from that date and you get almost six decades of open war between seven major kingdoms before the Qin victory, preceded by three more centuries of gradual Zhou collapse. The Qin's own life as a unified empire was only fifteen years, 221 to 206 BCE, yet every dynasty that followed kept its administrative core.

Now take the Han census of 2 CE. Imperial clerks counted roughly 57.7 million registered individuals in 12.3 million households. That is the population of the Roman Empire at its height, reached by a single tax-and-conscription administration using a single script and a single legal code. The Han population at its mid-first-century peak was probably near 60 million before epidemics and the late-second-century rebellions drove it down.

Consider the Great Wall. The walls the Qin linked together in the 210s BCE are not the brick wall tourists walk today; that is Ming, fourteenth to seventeenth century. A 2012 state cultural-heritage survey measured the total length of all walls built across all dynasties at roughly 21,196 kilometres. The Ming portions alone account for about 8,851 kilometres. The Qin-Han defensive system was built of rammed earth, garrisoned against the Xiongnu, and its scale explains the labour burden that broke the Qin regime.

Joseph Needham catalogued China's technological lead across decades of work. To name only the Han-dated items: true paper (archaeological evidence second century BCE, improved and reported to the throne by Cai Lun in 105 CE), the lodestone compass used for divination and siting (Han), and cast-iron production on an industrial scale (from the Warring States onward). Hold those dates against the great-divergence question: China had cast iron roughly seventeen centuries before Europe did.

Check your understanding Beginner

Formal definition Intermediate+

The terms below are used precisely in the comparative framework and the Master-tier analysis. Each names a structure that recurs in the historical and historiographical arguments.

The mandate of heaven (tianming) is the Zhou doctrine, articulated to justify the conquest of the Shang around 1046 BCE, that the right to rule is granted by tian (Heaven, a cosmic moral order rather than a personal deity) to a virtuous house and may be withdrawn from a corrupt one. Natural disaster, famine, and successful rebellion are read as signs of withdrawal. The doctrine is revocable, conditional, and moralised, which distinguishes it sharply from the European divine right of kings: a king who loses the mandate may be overthrown legitimately ^{[Ebrey 2010]}.

The commandery-and-county system (junxian) is the administrative structure imposed by the Qin in 221 BCE: the empire is divided into commanderies governed by appointed officials, subdivided into counties, with no hereditary fiefs in the former warring states. It replaced the Zhou feudal (fengjian) network of autonomous lordships and became the default skeletal structure of every subsequent Chinese dynasty.

The Hundred Schools denotes the philosophical traditions that competed during the Eastern Zhou (771-221 BCE): principally Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism, and Mohism, with the School of Names, the Yin-Yang school, and the agriculturalists as secondary strands. The name is conventional; the major schools number four or five, not a hundred. The schools share a question, how to restore order after the collapse of Zhou authority, and differ on the answer ^{[Fairbank & Goldman 2006]}.

Legalism (fajia), systematised by Han Feizi (circa 280-233 BCE), holds that order depends on impersonal institutional design rather than the moral virtue of rulers or officials. Its three instruments are fa (publicly posted law, uniformly enforced), shu (the ruler's methods for monitoring and controlling ministers), and shi (the institutional power vested in the office, independent of its holder's qualities).

The Han synthesis is the amalgam, formalised under Emperor Wu (reigned 141-87 BCE), in which Legalist administrative machinery is retained but dressed in Confucian moral legitimacy. A shared canon of classics, mastery tested by recruitment and examination, supplies both the ideological glue of the empire and the personnel of its bureaucracy. Variants of this synthesis governed China for roughly two thousand years ^{[Fairbank & Goldman 2006]}.

Civil-service recruitment denotes the Han practice (institutionalised 195 BCE under Han Gaozu, systematised under Emperor Wu from about 124 BCE) of selecting officials through recommendation and tested literary-moral competence rather than birthright. This is the precursor of the formal imperial examinations established under the Sui and Tang, centuries later than the Han but prefigured by it.

The Silk Road is the modern (Richthofen, 1877) name for the overland and maritime exchange networks linking China, Central Asia, India, Persia, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean from roughly the second century BCE onward. The singular noun is misleading; the network was a branching set of caravan and sea routes carrying silk, metals, and ceramics westward and horses, glass, precious stones, and (decisively for China) Buddhism eastward ^{[Ebrey 2010]}.

The Needham Question is Joseph Needham's formulation (from the 1954 opening volume of Science and Civilisation in China) of why modern experimental-mathematical science and the industrial breakthrough arose in Europe and not in China, given China's long and substantial technological lead. The question structures the great-divergence debate treated at Master tier ^{[Needham 1954]}.

The great divergence is the term, given its modern shape by Kenneth Pomeranz in 2000, for the economic and technological gap that opened between northwestern Europe and the most advanced regions of China. The contested issue is its timing and cause: a deep, centuries-long institutional divergence (Needham, the older Eurocentric literature) or a late, contingent gap dating to about 1800 and driven by coal and colonies (Pomeranz and the California School) ^{[Pomeranz 2000]}.

Comparative framework: why the Han outlived the Qin Intermediate+

The survey unit 32.05.01 sketches four dynasty models. This section goes deeper into the most instructive contrast in early Chinese history: the Qin (221-206 BCE) and the Han (206 BCE-220 CE) governed essentially the same territory with essentially the same administrative skeleton, yet one collapsed in fifteen years and the other survived four centuries. The comparison isolates what made large premodern empires durable.

The Qin ran the commandery-and-county system as a pure command economy of power. The First Emperor abolished hereditary lordships, divided the empire into thirty-six commanderies, standardised the script, weights, measures, and axle gauges, disarmed the former warring states, and mobilised enormous labour forces for the Lingqu canal, the Zhengguo canal, the imperial road network (zhidao), the tomb complex at Mount Li with its terra-cotta army, and the northern walls linked against the Xiongnu. Sima Qian reports that the terra-cotta army project alone involved an estimated 700,000 conscripted labourers. The system extracted resources and suppressed dissent with unsurpassed efficiency; it also generated the resentment that produced open rebellion within months of the First Emperor's death in 210 BCE ^{[Ebrey 2010]}.

The Han retained the Qin skeleton almost intact. The commanderies and counties stayed. The standardised script stayed. The single legal code, recast, stayed. The roads and canals stayed. What changed was the legitimation and the intensity. The early Han under Gaozu and the Wen-Jing reigns (circa 195-141 BCE) deliberately lowered tax rates, relaxed forced-labour obligations, and let the population recover from the wars. Emperor Wu then made three changes that together constitute the synthesis. First, he adopted Confucianism as the official learning (about 124 BCE), patronising a single canon as the curriculum of the court. Second, he systematised recommendation-based recruitment so that officials were selected for literary and moral competence in that canon. Third, he extended the empire into the Tarim Basin, southward into Yue territory, and northward against the Xiongnu, opening the Silk Road under military protection ^{[Fairbank & Goldman 2006]}.

The structural contrast is that the Qin governed by coercion alone and the Han governed by coercion plus legitimacy. A Confucian-trained official class had a stake in the regime: its status, income, and identity flowed from mastery of the very canon the dynasty patronised. The emperor who offended that class (Wang Mang, the eunuch-faction emperors of the late Eastern Han) ruled precariously; the emperor who honoured it governed an empire that could survive defeat, famine, and usurpation. The Han synthesis did not abolish the Qin command machinery; it made that machinery acceptable to the people who had to operate it.

The numerical contrast is decisive. Fifteen years against approximately four hundred. The Qin collapse was so rapid and so total that the Han founding generation treated it as a standing lesson in what not to do. The Han collapse, by contrast, took nearly forty years of epidemic, rebellion (the Yellow Turbans in 184 CE), and warlord fragmentation after the effective end of central authority around 189 CE, and even then the institutions outlived the dynasty. The commandery-and-county structure, the Confucian canon as official curriculum, the recommendation-and-examination recruitment, and the standardised script all passed intact into the Three Kingdoms, the Jin, and every succeeding unified dynasty.

Bridge. This comparative framework builds toward the Master-tier question of why a civilisation that solved the problem of governing sixty million people with a literate bureaucracy did not solve the later problem of industrial breakthrough, a question that appears again in the Needham and Pomeranz debate. The foundational reason the Han outlived the Qin is that coercion plus legitimacy outlasts coercion alone, and this is exactly the asymmetry that explains both the durability of the Han synthesis and its later conservatism. The central insight is that the same examination-and-canon machinery that made the Han state governable also channelled talent away from natural philosophy and commerce, and putting these together yields the structural preconditions for the great-divergence argument that follows. The bridge is that the Han solved the problem of large-scale political order so successfully that its solution became an obstacle to the different problems of the second millennium, and that doubleness generalises to every later question about why successful institutions resist the very transformations they make possible.

Exercises Intermediate+

The great-divergence roots debate Master

Why did an industrial breakthrough occur in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century northwestern Europe rather than in China, given China's long technological lead? This is the Needham Question, and the modern literature offers at least two sharply different answers. The two positions below are presented as the literature actually divides; the unit does not adjudicate between them.

Position one — the institutional and cultural divergence (Needham and the older Eurocentric literature)

On the Needham-style reading, the divergence is deep, reaching back into the institutional and intellectual structures laid down in antiquity and consolidated under the Han ^{[Needham 1954]}. The argument has several components. China's examination-and-canon system, founded in the Han synthesis, channelled literary talent into administrative careers oriented to ethics, history, and statecraft rather than into natural philosophy, mathematics, or entrepreneurial commerce. The Chinese scientific tradition, while empirically rich, lacked the Euclidean axiomatic-deductive geometry and the formal-logical apparatus that gave European science after the seventeenth century its mathematised predictive form. Chinese craft knowledge was transmitted through apprenticeship and artisanal lineage rather than through the corporate, chartered institutions (universities, learned societies, autonomous merchant cities) that in Europe created durable bodies capable of accumulating, criticising, and capitalising knowledge. The logographic script, while it held the empire together across mutually unintelligible spoken languages, was costlier to learn and to print than an alphabet, with consequences for the diffusion of technical writing.

The older Eurocentric variant of this position (Weber, and later Jones) treats European rationality, Roman property law, the corporate commune, and the Christian scholastic distinction between God and nature as preconditions for the breakthrough that China lacked ^{[Fairbank & Goldman 2006]}. Needham himself rejected the racial or civilisational-supremacist versions of this argument and insisted that the question is why a specific social-intellectual configuration arose in one place and not another, given the evident capacity of Chinese natural philosophers and artisans. But the structural form of the answer is the same: the divergence is deep and institutional, and its roots reach back into the period this unit surveys.

Position two — the late and contingent divergence (Pomeranz and the California School)

Kenneth Pomeranz's 2000 The Great Divergence argues that the older reading has the timing wrong. On Pomeranz's account, the most advanced region of China, the Yangtze delta, was roughly comparable to England in population density, commercialisation, market integration, and even life expectancy as late as the middle of the eighteenth century. There was no deep, centuries-long institutional gap visible in the standard of living or the sophistication of the economy. The divergence opened late, dated to about 1800, and was driven by two contingent factors rather than by civilisational differences ^{[Pomeranz 2000]}.

The first factor is coal. Britain had easily accessible coal deposits near its economic and population core, which allowed the substitution of mineral energy for wood, charcoal, and human and animal muscle at the precise moment that industrial energy demand began to rise. China's coal reserves were located in the northwest (Shanxi and Shaanxi), far from the Yangtze economic core, and their exploitation was disrupted in the early Qing by the collapse of demand and by transport cost. The second factor is what Pomeranz calls the colonies and the "ghost acres" of the New World: Britain and northwestern Europe could draw on the land, timber, cotton, sugar, and slave labour of the Americas to escape the ecological constraints that a densely populated region without an external land frontier faced. The Yangtze delta, in this reading, had exhausted its internal land frontier; the ecological relief that Britain obtained from the Americas was unavailable to it.

The implication is sharp. The same Han institutional matrix that the Needham-style reading treats as an obstacle to breakthrough can be read instead as a perfectly workable framework for running a high-level agrarian empire, and the question of why industrialisation happened in Europe and not in China becomes a question about coal, colonies, and contingency circa 1800 rather than about Confucianism and the examination system circa 200 BCE.

What is actually contested

The two positions disagree about timing, about cause, and about what counts as evidence. Needham-style institutionalism reads the examination-and-canon system and the absence of corporate autonomous bodies as long-run structural constraints; Pomeranz-style revisionism reads those same features as compatible with high-level pre-industrial prosperity and locates the decisive divergence in energy and land constraints that only bit after 1750. Neither position denies the Han achievement; they disagree about whether the Han inheritance explains the later non-breakthrough. The California School (Pomeranz, Wong, Goldstone, Frank) and the institutional-school critics (Clark, Allen in part, Mokyr in part) continue to argue the case on econometric, institutional, and historical grounds, and the contest is live.

Synthesis. The great-divergence debate is the foundational reason the Shang-to-Han sequence matters for world history rather than only for East Asian history, and this is exactly the question that appears again in every comparative account of why some agrarian empires made the industrial transition and others did not. The central insight of the revisionist scholarship is that the Han synthesis was a genuine solution to the problem of governing sixty million people with a literate bureaucracy, not a failure to invent modernity, and putting these together with Pomeranz's timing reframes the Needham Question from a puzzle about Chinese deficiency into a puzzle about a specific European conjuncture. The bridge is that the same institutional matrix that made the Qin-Han empire administrable also shaped the conditions under which later industrialisation would or would not take root, and that doubleness generalises to every later question about the path-dependence of successful institutions. Putting these together, the Qin unification and the Han synthesis are simultaneously the foundational reason East Asia developed as it did and one of the load-bearing cases in the modern debate over the origins of the modern world economy.

Connections Master

• Ancient China: the survey 32.05.01. This unit is the depth complement to the survey, not a substitute for it. Where the survey answers what happened across the Shang, Zhou, Qin, and Han, this unit concentrates on the Qin-Han contrast as a model of durability, the Silk Road as a two-way transmission network, and the great-divergence question as the reason the early Chinese achievement matters comparatively. The two are designed to be read together; neither is complete alone.

• The Mongol empire and the Yuan interruption 32.13.01. The Han model of a unified bureaucratic empire with a Confucian-trained official class governed China for roughly two thousand years, but it was interrupted twice by conquest regimes. The Mongol Yuan (1271-1368) is the decisive case: a conquest dynasty that ruled the full Chinese territory through a deliberately modified version of the Han administrative skeleton, restored the examination system in 1313, and reconfigured the Silk Road under the Pax Mongolica. The Mongol episode is the natural test case for whether the Qin-Han state machinery was an ethnic-Chinese artefact or a transferable technology of empire.

• Classical India and the Mauryan-Gupta sequence 32.08.01. The Mauryan empire under Ashoka (circa 268-232 BCE) and the Han empire under Emperor Wu were rough contemporaries of comparable scale, each governing a subcontinent through a centralised bureaucracy, each patronising a state ideology (Buddhism under Ashoka, Confucianism under Wu), each running long-distance trade networks. The comparison is also the channel for Buddhism's entry into Han China along the Silk Road, the single most consequential cultural import of the period. The Mauryan-Han comparison is the natural framework for asking why the Indian sequence fragmented after the Guptas while the Chinese sequence reconstituted itself after every collapse.

• The Islamic golden age and the translation movement 32.10.01 32.10.02 pending. The Chinese papermaking technology improved under Cai Lun in 105 CE reached the Islamic world after the Battle of Talas in 751 CE, when Chinese papermakers captured by the Abbasid army were brought to Samarkand and established a paper industry that spread to Baghdad and underpinned the Abbasid translation movement and the bureaucracies of the Islamic golden age. The transmission of paper from Han China to Abbasid Baghdad to medieval Europe is one of the cleanest examples of a Chinese invention reshaping the institutional possibilities of other civilisations, and it is part of the evidentiary base for the Needham Question treated above.

• Prehistory and the agricultural foundations 32.01.01. The Yellow River millet agriculture and the Yangtze rice agriculture that underwrote the Shang and all subsequent Chinese population densities were laid down in the Neolithic, millennia before the first dynasties. The Han census of 57.7 million registered persons is demographically unintelligible without that agrarian base, and the great-divergence question's framing of the Yangtze delta as a high-level agrarian economy circa 1800 rests on the same long-run productivity that the Neolithic domestications made possible.

Historical & philosophical context Master

Sima Qian and the Confucian framing of the Qin

Sima Qian's Shiji, completed around 94 BCE, is the foundational text of Chinese historiography and the lens through which the Qin was read for the next two thousand years ^{[Sima Qian circa 94 BCE]}. Sima Qian inherited the office of court astrologer and historian from his father Sima Tan and devoted his life to a comprehensive history from the mythical Yellow Emperor through the reign of Emperor Wu. The Shiji fixed the biographical-annalistic format (annals, tables, treatises, hereditary houses, biographies) that every later dynastic history followed.

The Shiji is not neutral and Sima Qian did not pretend it was. His treatment of the First Emperor balances admiration for the administrative achievement with moral condemnation of the regime's severity, a balance that the later Confucian tradition flattened into pure condemnation. Sima Qian's personal circumstances shaped the text. Around 99 BCE he defended the general Li Ling, who had surrendered to the Xiongnu, and was sentenced to castration by Emperor Wu. He chose to live in disgrace to finish the Shiji, explaining in the famous letter to Ren An that he could not bear to let the work die with him. The episode is one of the foundational statements of the historian's vocation in any tradition.

The Confucian bias of the received tradition has a structural consequence for this unit's central comparison. The Qin appears in the Shiji and in the later standard histories as the archetypal tyranny, and that framing obscures how much of the Qin administrative machinery the Han quietly retained. The honest reading, supported by the institutional evidence and by modern historians from Fairbank onward, is that the Qin-Han sequence is better treated as a continuous state-formation episode with a brutal first phase and a stabilised second phase than as a virtuous Han rejection of a wicked Qin ^{[Fairbank & Goldman 2006]}.

The oracle bones and the correction of the textual record

The Shang dynasty was, before 1899, a semi-mythical entry in the Shiji. The discovery in that year of oracle bones at Anyang, and the systematic excavations begun in 1928, transformed the Shang into documented history. Over 150,000 inscribed fragments have been catalogued, confirming the Shang king list against Sima Qian's much later account and providing direct evidence of pyromantic divination, warfare, agriculture, and royal kinship ^{[Keightley 1978]}. David Keightley's reconstruction of the divination rite, from which this unit draws, reads the practice as a royal technology of decision and archive: the king (or a diviner acting for him) applied heat to prepared hollows on a turtle plastron or bovine scapula, read the resulting cracks as an ancestor's answer, and had both question and outcome inscribed into the bone. The bones were then stored, making the divination rite also a record-keeping system.

The Anyang evidence is the cleanest case in early Chinese history of archaeology both confirming and correcting a literary tradition. It confirmed the Shang against late-nineteenth-century scepticism; it corrected details of the king list; and it revealed a religious-political world, organised around royal consultation of royal ancestors, for which the much later transmitted texts give only an attenuated account.

The Needham project as a historiographical event

Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China, begun in 1954 and continued after his death by the Needham Research Institute, is itself a historiographical event whose framing shaped the great-divergence debate ^{[Needham 1954]}. Needham, a biochemist by training, set out to catalogue the full scope of Chinese scientific and technological achievement and in doing so established the empirical premise of the Needham Question: that China held a substantial, long-running technological lead over Europe in fields including iron casting, paper, printing, the compass, stirrup harness, the seed drill, the wheelbarrow, water-powered trip-hammers, and deep-drilling for brine. The project's volume-by-volume accumulation of evidence made the older Eurocentric assumption of inherent Chinese technological backwardness untenable, and in doing so it created the very puzzle that the project's introductory question names. Pomeranz's revisionism, half a century later, is intelligible only against the Needham corpus that established what there was to be divergent from.

Bibliography Master

@book{ebrey2010cambridge,
  author    = {Ebrey, Patricia Buckley},
  title     = {The Cambridge Illustrated History of {China}},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  edition   = {2nd},
  year      = {2010}
}

@book{fairbank2006china,
  author    = {Fairbank, John King and Goldman, Merle},
  title     = {China: A New History},
  publisher = {Belknap Press of Harvard University Press},
  edition   = {Enlarged},
  year      = {2006}
}

@book{needham1954scc,
  author    = {Needham, Joseph},
  title     = {Science and Civilisation in {China}},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  volume    = {1},
  note      = {Introductory Orientations},
  year      = {1954}
}

@book{pomeranz2000divergence,
  author    = {Pomeranz, Kenneth},
  title     = {The Great Divergence: {China}, {Europe}, and the Making of the Modern World Economy},
  publisher = {Princeton University Press},
  year      = {2000}
}

@book{keightley1978sources,
  author    = {Keightley, David N.},
  title     = {Sources of {Shang} History: The Oracle-Bone Inscriptions of {Bronze} {Age} {China}},
  publisher = {University of California Press},
  year      = {1978}
}

@book{ropp2010china,
  author    = {Ropp, Paul S.},
  title     = {China in World History},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  year      = {2010}
}

@book{keightley2000ancestral,
  author    = {Keightley, David N.},
  title     = {The Ancestral Landscape: Time, Space, and Community in Late {Shang} {China}},
  publisher = {Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley},
  year      = {2000}
}

@book{loewe1999cambridge,
  editor    = {Loewe, Michael and Shaughnessy, Edward L.},
  title     = {The Cambridge History of Ancient {China}: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 {B.C.}},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  year      = {1999}
}

@book{simaqian_shiji,
  author    = {{Sima Qian}},
  title     = {Shiji ({Records} of the {Grand} {Historian})},
  note      = {Completed circa 94 BCE; partial English translations by Watson (1961) and Nienhauser (1994--)},
  year      = {-94}
}

@article{wong1997china,
  author    = {Wong, R. Bin},
  title     = {China and {Capitalism}: A {Question} of {Historical} {Trajectory}},
  journal   = {International Institute for Asian Studies Newsletter},
  year      = {1997},
  note      = {A California School statement of the late-divergence argument Pomeranz develops in full}
}

@book{frank1998reorient,
  author    = {Frank, Andre Gunder},
  title     = {ReOrient: Global Economy in the {Asian} {Age}},
  publisher = {University of California Press},
  year      = {1998}
}

@book{allen2009british,
  author    = {Allen, Robert C.},
  title     = {The {British} Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  year      = {2009}
}