In the past the Kham region has been treated as merely a throughway to Central Tibet, an area of little importance. Xiuyu Wang's book seeks to place Kham at the center of Sino-Tibetan relations. In his introductory chapter, Wang sets to outline the book in three interrelated themes dealing with the late Qing. First, he asks how successful the Qing was in incorporating the Tibetan-speaking region of Kham; second, he deals with the larger issue of the formation of Qing frontier policy; and last he juxtaposes the Qing frontier policy with imperialism and nationalism (pp. 2–3). The Qing expansion can be viewed as a reaction to Western imperialism; Chinese nationalistic narrative characterizes it as the “unification” of borderlands. From the perspective of local Tibetans, the encroachment into their homeland was experienced as Qing imperialism. Wang rightly points out that the rise of Qing imperialism and nationalism also saw a concomitant rise of Tibetan nationalism (p. 11).

The book is divided into eight chapters. Chapters 1–3 provide a good general picture of the Qing's often uneasy relationship with Tibetan polities in Kham. Wang describes the Qing position as “symbolic and distant” and says “the indigenous attitude toward it was often one of indifference” (p. 54). Chapters 4–6 focus on the shift in Qing policy from loose rule to direct rule. The final chapters examine the Qing attempt to incorporate Kham into the economy and the region as a place of resources for Western China.

One of the main strengths of the book is Wang's use of Chinese-language sources, including some Grand Council archival documents and hitherto unexplored Qing officials’ accounts of Tibet. Wang provides a good analysis of the Qing motives and global issues that propelled aggressive frontier policies. In particular, the book examines the Qing perception of Tibet and its place in the Qing empire (pp. 21–26). The author avoids seeing the relationship simply as Qing domination and Tibetan resistance. Wang makes the interesting statement that official Qing views “were not uniform nor unchanging” (p. 25). The book provides a well-argued analysis of the Qing's changing relations with not only Tibet but also the Tibetan-speaking population in the frontier. It is evident that Wang has a good knowledge of the available Chinese sources; however, he does not provide a detailed account or discussion of the available sources. A discussion of the reliability and the limitations of relying entirely on official Qing sources would have been illuminating.

In dealings with the Sino-Tibetan frontier history one needs to examine both Tibetan and Chinese sources. Because Wang uses mostly Chinese sources, he delivers a Sino-centric view. Leaving aside Tibetan sources and not taking the Tibetan perspective into account leads to confusion over geography. While Wang refers to the region as Kham, his understanding of the term conforms to the later Republican creation of Xikang Province. Unfortunately, Qing references to Kang (康) or Kamu (喀木) and the later Republican creation of Xikang are not synonymous with the Tibetan term “Khams.” Another example of the confusion over geography is that Wang identifies the “Thirty-nine Tribes of Hor” (Hor tsho so dgu; 霍尔三十九族) as part of the Northern Kham Hor states (p. 23). Although the “Thirty-nine Tribes” are called “Hor,” they are a distinct group, and located in present-day Nakchu and Chamdo Prefectures in the Tibet Autonomous Region. There is no connection between the Thirty-nine Tribes of Hor and the Northern Kham Hor states. Also, Wang does not examine Qing relations with the entire Kham region, but focuses only on a few of the Khampa polities. The book does not provide a clear delineation of geography and place, and the author sometimes uses the term “Tibet” and “Kham” interchangeably while at other times he differentiates the two.

The main weakness of the book is the lack of references to some basic primary and secondary sources in Tibetan studies and its failure to appreciate the local conditions fully. This is particularly evident in chapter 2, entitled “Frontier Society and Power.” For instance, in Wang's discussion of local power in Batang, it would have strengthened his analysis of different political players in Batang if he had referred to William Coleman's article entitled “The Uprising in Batang: Khams and Its Significance in Tibetan and Chinese History” (Lawrence Epstein, ed., Khams pa Histories [Leiden: Brill, 2002], pp. 31–55). Similarly, Wang's discussion of the role of monasteries and their religious leaders in the frontier society would have greatly benefited from rich secondary sources dealing with the history of Tibetan Buddhist institutions in Kham based on Tibetan and Chinese sources (Karl Debreczeny, “Ethnicity and Esoteric Power: Negotiating the Sino-Tibetan Synthesis in Ming Buddhist Painting,” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2007; Alexander Gardner, “The Twenty-Five Great Sites of Khams: Religious Geography, Revelation and Nonsectarianism in Nineteenth Century Eastern Tibet,” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2006; and Jann Ronis, “Celibacy, Revelations, and Reincarnated Lamas: Contestation and Synthesis in the Growth of Monasticism at Katok Monastery from the 11th through 19th Centuries,” PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2009).

It has become standard practice to refer to local Khampa rulers with the Qing term “tusi.” By doing so, it is easy to forget that the Khampa rulers’ position was not dependent on Qing patronage. We have to continue to bear in mind that the authority of the local rulers was based on local sources of legitimacy. Similarly, territories supposed to have been ruled by local Kham rulers provided in the Qing gazetteers (p. 44) did not correspond directly with the actual exertion of power in reality. Although Wang seeks to provide local agency and voices, because his study does not draw on Tibetan sources, he is unable to appreciate local conditions with sufficient depth and has a tendency to accept Qing official rhetoric as fact.

The book also suffers from a lack of understanding of Tibetan terms, and this sometimes leads to mistaken assumptions. For instance, when writing about Batang, Wang writes: “In 1703, Lhasa appointed two local leaders as managers of the town” (p. 56). In the Qing source the term Yingguan (营官, which Wang translates as “managers”) is used for the Tibetan term depa. In 1703 Lhasa appointed the principal depa (Tib. ’Ba’ sde pa) and the assistant depa (Tib. gnya’ ngan/gnon sde pa). These officials were not simply “managers” as Wang understands them; the position of depa is similar to that of a governor or commissioner of the region. Finally, since the book deals with many Qing military expeditions and Qing officials’ accounts of various places in Tibet, it would have been helpful for readers if a map had been included.

Despite the drawbacks noted above, the book is strong in its use of Chinese sources and does provide a good assessment of late Qing polices toward Tibet and Sino-Tibetan border regions. Xiuyu Wang's China's Last Imperial Frontier: Late Qing Expansion in Sichuan's Tibetan Borderlands is a welcome addition to the growing body of scholarly works on Kham, the Sino-Tibetan frontier.