Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:12:50.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond categories and boundaries: transmarine mobility and coastal governance of Northeast Asia in the sixteenth century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2022

Jing Liu
Jing Liu*
Affiliation:
Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, Shanghai, China
*
Email: jingliu@sass.org.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the growth of cross-border movement and migration in the northern portion of the Yellow Sea during the sixteenth century, which generated ongoing interactions and tensions with the coastal governance of Chosŏn Korea and Ming China. The fluid flow of private seafarers reconnected the northern Yellow Sea and revitalised its maritime economy, making this space an integral part of wider trade networks. Meanwhile, the Chosŏn and Ming authorities also attempted to discern, categorise, and institutionalise this transmarine mobility in their discursive, administrative, and geographic spaces. Instead of considering the two polities as land based and inward looking, this article foregrounds the dynamics of their coastal control mechanisms, while at the same time paying close attention to their constraints on filtering and scrutinising maritime violence.

Keywords

Maritime migrationcoastal governancenortheast Asiasixteenth centuryChosŏn KoreaMing Chinapiracy
Type
Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 2023 , pp. 133 - 154
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Asiatic Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For some recent English-language studies of maritime piracy in early modern East Asia, see Robert Antony (ed.), Elusive Pirates, Pervasive Smugglers: Violence and Clandestine Trade in the Greater China Seas (Hong Kong, 2010); Lim, Ivy Maria, Lineage Society on the Southeastern Coast of China: The Impact of Japanese Piracy in the 16th Century (New York, 2010)Google Scholar; Cheng, Weichung, War, Trade and Piracy in the China Seas, 1622–1683 (Leiden, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapinsky, Peter D., Lords of the Sea: Pirates, Violence, and Commerce in Late Medieval Japan (Ann Arbor, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hang, Xing, Conflict and Commerce in Maritime East Asia: The Zheng Family and the Shaping of the Modern World, c. 1620–1720 (Cambridge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tonio Andrade and Xing Hang (eds.), Sea Rovers, Silver, and Samurai: Maritime East Asia in Global History, 1550–1700 (Honolulu, 2016).

2 The scope of the northern Yellow Sea, as referred to in this research, is roughly between Ming China's Liaodong and Shandong peninsulas, and the northwestern provinces, Hwanghae and P'yŏngan, of Chosŏn Korea. In the discussions of early modern maritime East Asia, sea regions in the south, such as the South and East China Seas, where more apparent and frequent interactions among multiple countries and communities occurred, draw more attention.

3 For instance, the introduction of Fujita Kayoko, Momoki Shiro and Anthony Reid (eds.), Offshore Asia: Maritime Interactions in Eastern Asia Before Steamship (Singapore, 2013) points out that the book sees “all eastern Asia as a maritime and interdependent arena” (p. 2), while some of its individual chapters, such as Kenneth Robinson's research on Chosŏn Korea's role in maritime East Asian trade, also “highlights the multiplicity of exchange contexts, and the regions and microregions that routine interaction helped shape” (p. 205).

4 Historians more often investigate exchanges, communications, and disputes in the territorial borderland of early modern China and Korea. For some recent studies, see Hasumi Moriyoshi, Mindai Ryōtō to Chōsen (Tokyo, 2014); Seonmin Kim, The Ginseng and Borderland: Territorial Boundaries and Political Relations between Qing China and Chosŏn Korea, 1636–1912 (Oakland, 2017); Tsuji Yamato, Chōsen ōcho no tai Chū bōeki seisaku to Min Shin kōtai (Tokyo, 2018).

5 For instance, see Agnew, Christopher S., ‘Migrants and Mutineers: The Rebellion of Kong Youde and Seventeenth-Century Northeast Asia’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 52, 3 (2009), pp. 505–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C. S. Agnew, ‘Dengzhou and the Bohai Gulf in Seventeenth-Century Northeast Asia’, in The Growth of Non-Western Cities: Primary and Secondary Urban Networking, c. 900–1900, (ed.) Kenneth R. Hall (Lanham and Plymouth, 2011), pp. 171–194; Po, Ronald C., ‘A Port City in Northeast China: Dengzhou in the Long Eighteenth Century’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 28, 1 (2018), pp. 161–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. C. Po, ‘The Pearl by the Bohai Sea: Qinhuangdao in the Early Modern Period’, in Voyages, Migration, and the Maritime World: On China's Global Historical Role, (eds.) Clara Ho, Ricardo Mak and Yue-him Tam (Berlin and Boston, 2018), pp. 143–164.

6 Scholars have paid much attention to maritime prohibition, which was implemented from the beginning of the Ming dynasty, and the corresponding defence measures against Japanese piracy. For a summary of these policies, see Zurndorfer, Harriet, ‘Oceans of History, Seas of Change: Recent Revisionist Writing in Western Languages about China and East Asian Maritime History during the Period 1500–1630’, International Journal of Asian Studies 13, 1 (2016), pp. 61–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Some recent studies have begun to stress the proactiveness of the Qing state in regulating its maritime frontiers. For instance, see Gang Zhao, The Qing Opening to the Ocean: Chinese Maritime Policies, 1684–1757 (Honolulu, 2013); Ronold C. Po, The Blue Frontier: Maritime Vision and Power in the Qing Empire (Cambridge, 2018).

8 Ouyang Xiu and Song Qi, Xin Tangshu, fasc. 43 (part 2) (Beijing, 1975), p. 1147. For the Tang-Silla maritime interaction across the North Yellow Sea, see Guangqi, Sun, ‘Gongyuan 8–9 shiji Xinluo yu Tang de haishang jiaotong’, Haijiao shi yanjiu 1 (1997), pp. 30–42Google Scholar.

9 Cong Peiyuan (ed.), Zhongguo Dongbei shi, xiuding ban (Changchun, 2006), vol. 3, pp. 185–186.

10 Hongtao, Du, ‘Yuan Ming zhiji Liaodong de haoqiang jituan yu shehui bianqian’, Shilin 1 (2016), pp. 56–65Google Scholar.

11 Wang Saishi, Shandong yanhai kaifa shi (Jinan, 2005), p. 242; Zhao Shuguo, Mingdai beibu haifang tixi yanjiu (Jinan, 2014), pp. 72–73.

12 Kang Pongnyong (Kang Bong-ryong), ‘Han'guk haeyangsaŭi chŏnhwan: haeyangŭi shidaeesŏ haegŭmŭi shidaero’, Tosŏ munhwa 20 (2002), pp. 25–45; Min Tŏkki (Min Deak-kee), ‘Chung kŭnse Tong Ashiaŭi haegŭmjŏngch'aekkwa kyŏnggyeinshik Tongyangsamgugŭi haegŭmjŏngch'aekŭl chungshimŭro’, Han-Il kwan'gyesa yŏn'gu 39 (2011), pp. 103–129.

13 Zhonglin, Qiu, ‘Xipi yu dongpi: Mingdai Menggu yu Liaodong diqu maopi zhi shuru’, Danjiang shixue 20 (2009), pp. 21–61Google Scholar; Guang, Ma, ‘Chaogong zhiwai: Mingdai Chaoxian fu Hua shichen de siren maoyi’, Nanjing daxue xuebao (zhexue renwen kexue shehui kexue) 3 (2020), pp. 134–160Google Scholar.

14 Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 36/5/15 (8 June 1541), fasc. 95, in Chosŏn wangjo sillok (Seoul, 1956), vol. 18, p. 465.

15 Toyŏng, Ku (Koo Du-young), ‘16-segi Chosŏn tae Myŏng pulbŏmmuyŏgŭi hwaktaewa kŭ ŭiŭi’, Han'guksa yŏn'gu 170 (2015), pp. 177–223Google Scholar.

16 Ming Shizong shilu, Jiajing 37/6/3 (18 June 1558), fasc. 460 (Taipei, 1966), p. 7774; Liang Menglong, Haiyun xinkao, fasc. 3, in Xuanlantang congshu (Taipei, 1981), vol. 8, pp. 391–392.

17 Myŏngjong sillok, Myŏngjong 1/12/15 (6 January 1547), fasc. 4, in Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vol. 19, p. 472.

18 O Kŏn, Tŏkkye chip, fasc. 4, in Han'guk munjip ch'onggan (Seoul, 1988), vol. 38, pp. 124b–125a.

19 Myŏngjong sillok, Myŏngjong 9/5/11 (10 June 1554), fasc. 16, vol. 20, p. 195.

20 Yi I, Yulgok sŏnsaeng chŏnsŏ sŭbyu, fasc. 2, in Han'guk munjip ch'onggan, vol. 45, p. 494b. 權勢之家 廣占田畓於沿海郡邑 大開船運之路 以此官庫之儲 盡爲肥己事人之資 民間之粟 盡歸行商牟利之手.

21 For some related studies on the destruction of the Liaodong military farming system in the mid-Ming, see Wang Yuquan, Mingdai de juntun (Beijing, 1965), pp. 290–342; Yang Yang, Mingdai Liaodong dusi (Zhengzhou, 1988), pp. 111–124; Mingdai Dongbei shigang (Taipei, 1993), pp. 235–246; Zhang Jinkui, Mingdai weisuo junhu yanjiu (Beijing, 2007), pp. 235–246.

22 Sŏngjong sillok, Sŏngjong 23/8/4 (26 August 1492), fasc. 268, in Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vol. 12, p. 210; Yŏnsan'gun ilgi, Yŏnsan 4/12/11 (22 January 1499), fasc. 31, in Chosŏn wangjo sillok, vol. 13, p. 337.

23 Yŏnsan'gun ilgi, Yŏnsan 6/6/28 (23 July 1500), 6/7/7 (1 August 1500), fasc. 38, vol. 13, p. 418.

24 Wang Daokun, ‘Liaodong shanhou shiyi shu’, Wang Sima Taihan ji, fasc. 1, in Ming jingshi wenbian, (eds.) Chen Zilong, Xu Fuyuan and Song Zhengbi (Beijing, 1962), vol. 337, p. 3619; Zheng Ruozeng, Chouhai tubian (Beijing, 2007, punctuated and collated by Li Zhizhong), fasc. 7, pp. 455–456.

25 Ming Shizong shilu, Jiajing 45/10/16 (28 October 1566), fasc. 563, p. 9020.

26 Ming Shizong shilu, Jiajing 26/5/8 (26 May 1547), fasc. 323, p. 5991.

27 Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 27/2/18 (24 March 1532), fasc. 72, vol. 17, p. 356.

28 For the establishment of the sea-salvage system in Qing China regarding Japanese and Korean castaways after 1737, see Xufeng, Liu, ‘Ch'ŏngdae Chunggugŭi oegugin p'yoryuminŭi kujowa songhwane taehayŏ Chosŏnin'gwa Ilboninŭi saryerŭl chungshimŭro’, Tongbuga yŏksa nonch'ong 28 (2010), pp. 131–168Google Scholar. For the examinations of sea-salvage practices between the Ming and Chosŏn states, see Kangil, Kim, ‘Chŏn kŭndae Han'gugŭi haenamgujowa p'yoryumin kujo shisŭt'em’, Tongbuga yŏksa nonch'ong 28 (2010), pp. 7–57Google Scholar; Tianquan, Wang, ‘Chosŏn p'yoryumine taehan Myŏngŭi kujoch'eje Chunggukp'yoch'ak Cheju p'yoryuminŭl chungshimŭro’, Yŏksa minsokhak 40 (2012), pp. 161–188Google Scholar.

29 The word mibyŏnsŏn first appeared in Chosŏn wangjo sillok in 1523: see Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 18/6/21 (2 August 1523), fasc. 48, vol. 16, p. 238. The use of hwangdangsŏn was after 1528: see Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 23/7/29 (13 August 1528), fasc. 62, vol. 17, p. 16. Both coinages were used to describe unrecognised Chinese or Japanese ships appearing along Korea's coast since the 1520s, a phenomenon accompanying the thriving Sino-Japanese commercial intercourse that reached its heyday in the mid-sixteenth century. For the Korean government's response to unrecognised ships in the mid-sixteenth century, see Takahashi Kimiaki, ‘16-seiki chūki no kōtōsen to Chōsen no taiō’, in Zen-kindai no Nihon to Higashi Ajia, (ed.) Tanaka Takeo (Tokyo, 1995), pp. 95–112.

30 Not only did the Chosŏn government revise the definition of this term, but sea peoples manipulated official representations of “Japanese pirates” to meet their own end: see Peter D. Shapinsky, ‘Envoys and Escorts Representation and Performance among Koxinga's Japanese Pirate Ancestors’, in Sea Rovers, Silver, and Samurai, pp. 38–64.

31 Sŏngjong sillok, Sŏngjong 5/5/20 (4 June 1474), fasc. 42, vol. 9, p. 109.

32 For instance, see Takahashi Kimiaki, ‘Chūsei Higashi Ajia kaiiki niokeru kaitami to kōryū Saishū tō o chūshin toshite’, Nagoya daigaku bungakubu kenkyū ronshū, Shigaku 33 (1987), pp. 175–194; Seki Shūichi, Chūsei Nitchō kaiikishi no kenkyū (Tokyo, 2002); Rokutanda Yutaka, ‘15 16-seiki Chōsen no suizoku’, in Morihira Masahiko (ed.), Chū-kinsei no Chōsen Hantō to kaiiki kōryū (Tokyo, 2013), pp. 293–349.

33 Sŏngjong sillok, Sŏngjong 19/3/2 (13 April 1488), fasc. 214, vol. 11, p. 313.

34 Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 17/9/28 (17 October 1522), fasc. 46, vol. 16, p. 162.

35 Rokutanda Yutaka, ‘15 16-seiki Chōsen no suizoku’, p. 318.

36 Ryu Ch'angho (Ryu Chang-ho), ‘Sŏhae pukpu haeyŏgesŏ haerangjŏk hwaltonggwa Chosŏnjŏngbuŭi taeŭng: Haerang-do sut'o (1500 nyŏn) esŏ Paengnyŏngjin sŏlch'i (1609 nyŏn) kkaji’, T'amna munhwa 51 (2016), pp. 69–107.

37 Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 21/11/16 (19 December 1526), fasc. 57, vol. 16, 538; 21/11/17 (20 December 1526), fasc. 57, vol. 16, p. 539. The Chosŏn government did not clarify why it considered possessing spotted seal furs and horsehide leather as a sign of being water bandits, but it seems that the considerable profits from these items more often prompted organised crimes of stealing and smuggling. For instance, see Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 33/9/30 (22 October 1538), fasc. 88, vol. 18, p. 212; Chungjong 33/10/13 (4 November 1538), fasc. 88, vol. 18, p. 224.

38 Myŏngjong sillok, Myŏngjong 1/12/15 (6 January 1547), fasc. 4, vol. 19, p. 472.

39 O Kŏn, Tŏkkye chip, fasc. 4, vol. 38, p. 119b.

40 Kim Sŏngil, Hakpong chip sokchip, fasc. 2, in Han'guk yŏktae munjip ch'ongsŏ (Seoul, 1999), vol. 1903, pp. 258–260. 本道南通兩湖海寇之路 北接遼渤水賊之衝. …臣巡歷沿海 詢咨邊事 則唐倭未辨之賊 往來海中 日以搶掠爲事 豐川之椒島 長淵之白翎 大 小靑 海州之延平等島 爲賊藪穴 漁採商船 爲其所奪 至於搜討之船 亦被攻掠 如此之變 一歲之內 非止一再 而邊將只以匿不以報爲能事 而不爲勦捕之計 尤可痛憤也 所謂水賊者 非有攻戰器械 只以弱弩鈍鏃石塊木梃爲兵 爲邊將者 苟能謹哨瞭 整軍船 竢諸島來泊之際 四面掩襲 則其捕獲之易 有如反手 而任其往來 更無誰何 海賊之出入諸島 以射獵牧馬 伐材造船爲事者 無足怪也.

41 For such a rare example, see Hasumi Moriyoshi's research on the Chosŏn Korean government's investigation of a Ming person captured by Japanese pirates, ‘Myŏngnara saram Hwa Junggyŏngŭi Chosŏn p'yojakkwa kŭ swaehwan’, Tongguk sahak 47 (2009), pp. 263–290.

42 The core sources are Chosŏn wangjo sillok and the records under the category of “unrecognised ships” from the private history book Yŏllyŏsil kisul, one of the most representative and invaluable private historical writings in the late Chosŏn period.

43 Since it was rare for Liaodong people to drift to Korea's southeastern coast, the Chosŏn government paid special attention to case 2. For this reason this case is also included in this analysis. Sources: Case 1, Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 23/7/30 (14 August 1528), 23/8/20 (3 September 1528), fasc. 62, vol. 17, p. 16, p. 27. Case 2, Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 27/2/18 (24 March 1532), 27/2/30 (5 April 1532), fasc. 72, vol. 17, p. 356, p. 358. Case 3, Chungjong sillok, Chunjong 27/12/4 (29 December 1532), fasc. 73, vol. 17, p. 386. Case 4, Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 28/10/19 (5 November 1533), 28/11/3 (18 November 1533), fasc. 76, vol. 17, pp. 477–478. Case 5, Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 30/6/8 (7 July 1535), fasc. 79, vol. 17, p. 590; 30/7/1 (30 July 1535), fasc. 80, vol. 17, p. 594. Case 6, Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 35/1/19 (26 February 1540), fasc. 92, vol. 18, p. 373. Case 7, Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 39/7/12 (31 July 1544), 39/8/5 (22 August 1544), fasc. 104, vol. 19, p. 111, p. 123. Case 8, Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 39/9/11 (27 September 1544), 39/9/12 (28 September 1544), 39/9/18 (4 October 1544), fasc. 104, vol. 19, p. 133, p. 135. Case 9, Injong sillok, Injong 1/9/24 (29 October 1545), fasc. 47, vol. 19, p. 343. Case 10, Myŏngjong sillok, Myŏngjong 2/2/13 (4 March 1547), fasc. 5, vol. 19, p. 484. Case 11, Myŏngjong sillok, Myŏngjong 2/2/12 (3 March 1547), 2/2/13 (4 March 1547), fasc. 5, vol. 19, p. 484, Yi Kŭng'ik, Yŏllyŏsil kisul pyŏlchip, fasc. 17, in Kojŏn kugyŏk ch'ongsŏ 11 (Seoul, 1982), p. 744. Case 12, Myŏngjong sillok, Myŏngjong 5/2/26 (14 March 1550), fasc. 10, vol. 19, p. 684. Case 13, Yŏllyŏsil kisul pyŏlchip, fasc. 17, p. 744, Ming Shizong shilu, Jiajing 38/11/23 (21 December 1559), fasc. 478, pp. 7996–7997. Case 14, Myŏngjong sillok, Myŏngjong 19/9/21 (25 October 1564), 19/9/29 (2 November 1564), fasc. 30, vol. 20, p. 704, p. 705. Case 15, Yŏllyŏsil kisul pyŏlchip, fasc. 17, p. 744.

44 The arrested Chinese in case 4 intentionally crossed the border without official authorisation and threatened Korea's coastal security, but the Chosŏn court was reluctant to submit the case to the Ming Ministry of Rites since Liaodong border generals would be punished for their failure to prevent this crime. This situation indicates that the Chinese castaways in case 4 were under the direct management of the Liaodong Military Commission. Although the accurate date of case 10 is not given, the Chinese outlaws on Ch'odo Island were determined to be water bandits connecting with Koreans. This detail overlaps with the above case of Korean water bandit Ko Chijong, who led Korean and Liaodong border outlaws and was captured on Ch'odo Island in 1546. Case 12 is similar to case 10: the Chinese seafarers in case 12 built houses, conducted lumbering, and killed ranch horses on Ch'odo Island, similar to water bandits’ crimes. The king also regarded them as pirates who should be executed. In case 11 the Chinese were recorded as evaders from labour forces. Considering the massive movement of Liaodong inhabitants towards the sea to avoid taxes and services from the mid-Ming dynasty, the seafarers in case 11 were most likely from Liaodong.

45 Chungjong sillok, Chungjong 28/11/3 (18 November 1533), fasc. 76, vol. 17, p. 477.

46 Myŏngjong sillok, Myŏngjong 2/2/12 (3 March 1547), Myŏngjong 2/2/13 (4 March 1547), fasc. 5, vol. 19, p. 484.

47 Myŏngjong sillok, Myŏngjong 2/2/13 (4 March 1547), fasc. 5, vol. 19, p. 484.

48 Da Ming huidian (Taipei, 1963), fasc. 105, p. 1586.

49 This consideration is similarly manifested in the Liaodong Military Commission and Chosŏn Korean government's collaboration in dealing with other kinds of trespassing across the Yalu River; see Jing Liu and Yan Piao, ‘Expansion, Contestation, and Boundary Making: Chosŏn Korea and Ming China's Border Relations over the Yalu River Region’, International Journal of Korean History 25, 2 (2020), pp. 105–142.

50 Takahashi Kimiaki, ‘16-seiki chūki no kōtōsen to Chōsen no taiō’, p. 104.

51 Ming Shizong shilu, Jiajing 4/7/5 (24 July 1525), fasc. 53, p. 1314.

52 Gong Yongqing, ‘Fengshi fuming juti Liaodong difang minqing shu’, Yungang wenji, fasc. 7, in Ming bieji congkan, (ed.) Shen Naiwen, series 2, vol. 56 (Hefei, 2016), p. 276.

53 Wei Huan, ‘Liaodong jinglüe’, Xunbian zonglun, fasc. 1, in Ming jingshi wenbian, vol. 248, p. 2613. Also see Wei Huan, Huang Ming jiubian kao, fasc. 2, in Zhonghua wenshi congshu, (ed.) Wang Youli (Taipei, 1968), vol. 15, pp. 149–151. 一維遼之東南常山大海 海有島 流徙之民聚其間者曰島民 聚於萬山之間者曰流民 是皆四方亡命流徙 自食其力而罔知官府之法者 置而不問 則無以涣天下之群 而有意外之虞 繩之以法 則是激以賈禍也.

54 Wei Huan, ‘Liaodong jinglüe’, p. 2613. Also see Wei Huan, Huang Ming jiubian kao, pp. 150–151.

55 Ming Shizong shilu jiaokanji, Jiajing 33/4/3 (4 May 1554), fasc. 409, pp. 2188–2189. A bit more explanation of the development of the power of Grand Coordinator, Supreme Commander, and Regional Inspector, Liaodong official positions mentioned in this research, may help understand their interrelations in the context of the growing centralisation of power in the Liaodong government. Lacking an independent civil administration, the majority of Liaodong routine affairs were under the management of the Regional Military Commission. However, the Ming central government also delegated the Grand Coordinator, a short-term and nonsubstantive post, to Liaodong from the 1430s to coordinate its civil and military affairs. The Supreme Commander was a more centralised yet temporary institution that evolved from the Grand Coordinator system. High-ranking civil officials of the central government were usually assigned to this position with the responsibility of coordinating several Grand Coordinators and deploying troops in emergencies. See Charles O. Hucker, ‘Governmental Organization of The Ming Dynasty’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 21 (1958), pp. 1–66. Both positions were provincialised and regularised with enlarged power during the Jiajing reign. As reflected in this examination, in the mid-sixteenth century the Grand Coordinator for Liaodong played a direct and consistent role in sea defence management. With the expanding authority in the provincial administration, the Supreme Commander of Ji-Liao, a position newly established in 1550 in response to the disruption of Mongol tribes, began to be engaged in governing Liaodong coastal matters as well. Ming emperors further delegated Regional Inspectors to exercise censorial surveillance in provinces from the early fifteenth century, a post that was nominally subordinate to the Grand Coordinator. After the Longqing reign, the authority of the Regional Inspector grew rapidly to counter the provincialised power of the Grand Coordinator. The following discussion indicates that the role of the Liaodong Regional Inspector indeed became more prominent in this period.

56 Shizun, Zhang, ‘Lun Mingchu Liaodong haiyun’, Shehui kexue jikan 5 (1993), pp. 116–122Google Scholar.

57 Zhang Shizun, Mingdai Liaodong bianjiang yanjiu (Changchun, 2002), pp. 329–334. Also see Xiaoshan, Chen, ‘Mingdai Deng-Liao haidao de xingfei yu Liaodong bianjiang jinglüe’, Wenshi 1 (2010), pp. 209–234Google Scholar.

58 Gong Yongqing and Wu Ximeng, ‘Hanlinyuan xiuzhuan Gong Yongqing huke jishizhong Wu Ximeng huichen bianwu shu’, in Liaodong zhi, fasc. 7, Liaohai congshu, (ed.) Jin Yufu (Shenyang, 1985), vol. 1, p. 457. Also see Gong Yongqing, ‘Fengshi fuming juti Liaodong difang minqing shu’, pp. 275–276.

59 Wei Huan, ‘Liaodong jinglüe’, p. 2612.

60 Ming Shizong shilu, Jiajing 37/6/3 (18 June 1558), fasc. 460, pp. 7774–7775.

61 One sheng (0.001 dan) in the Ming and Qing dynasties equals 1035 cm3. See Qiu Guangming, Qiu Long and Yang Ping, Zhongguo kexue jishu shi, du liang heng juan (Beijing, 2001), p. 411.

62 Mingdai Liaodong dang'an huibian (Shenyang, 1985), no. 175, pp. 672–677.

63 Ming Shizong shilu, Jiajing 39/3/20 (15 April 1560), fasc. 482, pp. 8052–8053.

64 Wang Nie, ‘Da xunfang zhengti minqing’, Chi'an xiansheng ji, fasc. 3, in Siku weishou shu jikan, series 5 (Beijing, 2000), vol. 19, p. 57.

65 Ming Shizong shilu, Jiajing 40/10/5 (11 November 1561), fasc. 502, p. 8298.

66 Ming Shizong shilu, Jiajing 41/11/4 (29 November 1562), fasc. 515, pp. 8456–8457.

67 Ming Shizong shilu, Jiajing 42/12/5 (19 December 1563), fasc. 528, p. 8613.

68 Zheng Ruozeng, Chouhai tubian, fasc. 7, p. 457.

69 For some of these discussions see Wei Shiliang, ‘Wei zhongzhen weiku yiji kenqi shenchi xiuyang shu’, Wei Jingwu wenji, fasc. 1, in Ming jingshi wenbian, vol. 370, pp. 3999–4000; Chen Tianzi, ‘Haidao zou’, Quan Liao zhi, fasc. 5, in Liaohai congshu, vol. 1, p. 666.

70 Both Zhang Shizun and Chen Xiaoshan have noted this regional conflict between Shandong and Liaodong on whether to resume their official and private sea transport. See Zhang Shizun, Mingdai Liaodong bianjiang yanjiu, 338; Chen Xiaoshan, ‘Mingdai Deng-Liao haidao de xingfei yu Liaodong bianjiang jinglüe’, pp. 209–234.

71 Ming Muzong shilu, Longqing 5/9/7 (25 September 1571), fasc. 61 (Taipei, 1966), pp. 1480–1482.

72 Wang Daokun, ‘Liaodong shanhou shiyi shu’, pp. 3619–3620. The brief content of this memorial is also included in Ming Shenzong shilu, Wanli 1/8/10 (5 September 1573), fasc. 16 (Taipei, 1966), pp. 481–482.

73 Liu Yingjie, ‘Haidao xiping shu’, Shandong tongzhi, fasc. 35 (4), in Yingyin Wenyuange Siku quanshu (Taipei, 1986), vol. 541, p. 351. 但海水無涯 島嶼分峙 半夜扁舟 瞬息千里 在內不能周防 在彼豈肯待斃.

74 Liu Xiaozu, ‘Liaozhen jinglüe’, Sizhen sanguan zhi, fasc. 6, in Siku jinhui shu congkan (Beijing, 1997), Shibu, vol. 10, p. 212.

75 Sŏnjo sillok, Sŏnjo 2/1/16 (1 February 1569). fasc. 3, vol. 21, p. 201.

76 Sheng Shixuan, ‘Anfu xiahai bianmin bing can gaixia shu’, Beitai shucao, fasc. 3, Hishi Copy of the Original in Naikaku Bunko, Tokyo, made by Takeo Hiraoka of Kyoto University, 1970, collected in the East Asian Library of Princeton University, N9101/1715, vol. 523.

77 Liu Yingjie, ‘Haidao xiping shu’, pp. 352–353; Zhang Xueyan, ‘Bumin jinshu guishun shu’, Zhang Xinzhai zoushu, fasc. 1, Ming jingshi wenbian, vol. 363, p. 3909.

78 Zhang Xueyan, ‘Bumin jinshu guishun shu’, pp. 3909–3910. 南不屬之山東 北不屬之遼鎮 兩地官司 容隱推諉 坐視因循 養成厲階 幾致大亂.

79 Liu Yingjie, ‘Haidao xiping shu’, pp. 354–355; Zhang Xueyan, ‘Bumin jinshu guishun shu’, pp. 3909–3911.

80 Yangqian, Gu, Chong'an Gu xiansheng fu Liao zouyi, fasc. 6, in Xuxiu Siku quanshu (Shanghai, 2002), vol. 478, p. 265Google Scholar.

81 Ming Shenzong shilu, Wanli 7/8/8 (29 August 1579), vol. 90, p. 1851.

82 Tao Langxian, ‘Deng Liao yuanfei yiyu yi’, Tao Yuanhui zhongcheng yiji, fasc. 2, in Congshu jicheng sanbian (Taipei, 1996), vol. 51, p. 553. 自登遼戒絕往來 而海中諸島一并棄而不問 海賊乘機盤據其中 非夏非夷 自耕自食 問之遼 曰登之流民也 問之登曰遼之逋寇也.

83 Ho, Dahpon David, ‘The Empire's Scorched Shore: Coastal China, 1633–1683’, Journal of Early Modern History 17, 1 (2013), p. 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.