WHA Annual Meeting: Korea 2026

This paper examines migrant Cantonese woodworkers between Guangdong and Bengal during
the nineteenth century. The connection between Canton and Calcutta, two pivotal trading ports of the Qing and the British empires, has been largely seen through commodity chains. However, humans, especially skilled artisans, equally connected them, often traveling on the same vessels that carried famous commodities. Mobile woodworkers from the Pearl River Delta formed a particularly important workforce, traveling as – and transitioning between – ship carpenters, packing box-makers, shipwrights, builders, and more. I argue that the largely ignored craft culture of these woodworkers generated a spectacular globality through mobility and adaptation. By comparing various workshops and diasporic community halls in China and India, I show how woodworkers forged an informal standard of skilled work in international worksites in maritime Asia, leveraging the locally accumulated knowledge in uneven working environments across dockyards, urban workshops, rural factories, and public works.

This paper examines migrant Cantonese woodworkers between Guangdong and Bengal during
the nineteenth century. The connection between Canton and Calcutta, two pivotal trading ports of the Qing and the British empires, has been largely seen through commodity chains. However, humans, especially skilled artisans, equally connected them, often traveling on the same vessels that carried famous commodities. Mobile woodworkers from the Pearl River Delta formed a particularly important workforce, traveling as – and transitioning between – ship carpenters, packing box-makers, shipwrights, builders, and more. I argue that the largely ignored craft culture of these woodworkers generated a spectacular globality through mobility and adaptation. By comparing various workshops and diasporic community halls in China and India, I show how woodworkers forged an informal standard of skilled work in international worksites in maritime Asia, leveraging the locally accumulated knowledge in uneven working environments across dockyards, urban workshops, rural factories, and public works.

This paper traces how the artes mechanicae—the Jesuit science of machines—was translated across China and Korea between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. In Ming China, Johann Schreck (1576–1630) and Wang Zheng (1571–1644) first introduced mechanics as a legitimate form of “learning” in the Illustrations and Explanations of Wonderful Machines (1627), redefining it as the “learning of liyi” (the art of force). Although largely forgotten in China, these works—and related Sino-Jesuit treatises—found a vigorous afterlife in Chosŏn Korea. There, scholars and chungin (“middle people”) practitioners recast mechanics as both a mode of making and a natural-philosophical discourse. By the early nineteenth century, figures such as Chŏng Ut’ae, Kang Io, and Ch’oe Han’gi expanded these ideas through treatises, diagrams, and experimental devices. I argue that mechanics in Korea flourished precisely through the productive “distance” that enabled its continual reimagination.

This paper traces how the artes mechanicae—the Jesuit science of machines—was translated across China and Korea between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. In Ming China, Johann Schreck (1576–1630) and Wang Zheng (1571–1644) first introduced mechanics as a legitimate form of “learning” in the Illustrations and Explanations of Wonderful Machines (1627), redefining it as the “learning of liyi” (the art of force). Although largely forgotten in China, these works—and related Sino-Jesuit treatises—found a vigorous afterlife in Chosŏn Korea. There, scholars and chungin (“middle people”) practitioners recast mechanics as both a mode of making and a natural-philosophical discourse. By the early nineteenth century, figures such as Chŏng Ut’ae, Kang Io, and Ch’oe Han’gi expanded these ideas through treatises, diagrams, and experimental devices. I argue that mechanics in Korea flourished precisely through the productive “distance” that enabled its continual reimagination.

Recently, scholarship on Chinese law has grown exponentially. Drawing on new sources and insights from global legal history, some have also begun to examine Chinese law in a comparative perspective. Unfortunately, most of the focus so far has been pairing Chinese law with “Western law,” thus implicitly equating the West with the rest of the world. I will provide an alternative framework of comparative law by examining legal codes in Chosŏn (1392–1897), Qing (1636–1912), and Nguyễn (1802–1945) states. By taking the analysis beyond the well-known observations that the Chosŏn state adopted the Ming Code in its entirety and that the Nguyễn Code was almost a carbon copy of the Qing Code, I will highlight the complex processes of translation and negotiation involved in introducing “foreign law” into host societies. The analysis will point to the existence of a Sinitic law system in early modern Asia.

Recently, scholarship on Chinese law has grown exponentially. Drawing on new sources and insights from global legal history, some have also begun to examine Chinese law in a comparative perspective. Unfortunately, most of the focus so far has been pairing Chinese law with “Western law,” thus implicitly equating the West with the rest of the world. I will provide an alternative framework of comparative law by examining legal codes in Chosŏn (1392–1897), Qing (1636–1912), and Nguyễn (1802–1945) states. By taking the analysis beyond the well-known observations that the Chosŏn state adopted the Ming Code in its entirety and that the Nguyễn Code was almost a carbon copy of the Qing Code, I will highlight the complex processes of translation and negotiation involved in introducing “foreign law” into host societies. The analysis will point to the existence of a Sinitic law system in early modern Asia.

This article examines how competing definitions of “piracy” shaped diplomatic relations among Ming China, Chosŏn Korea, and Japan from the late fourteenth to the early fifteenth century. Drawing on the Chosŏn Wangjo Sillok, Ming Shilu, and Japanese court diaries, the study shows how each regime strategically deployed the label to advance its own agenda: the Ming emperor to assert imperial supremacy, the Chosŏn court to signal loyalty while protecting its maritime interests, and the Ashikaga shogunate to bolster domestic and international legitimacy. To sum up, I demonstrate that “piracy” was a fluid and contested discourse that bound the three states of East Asian diplomacy.

This article examines how competing definitions of “piracy” shaped diplomatic relations among Ming China, Chosŏn Korea, and Japan from the late fourteenth to the early fifteenth century. Drawing on the Chosŏn Wangjo Sillok, Ming Shilu, and Japanese court diaries, the study shows how each regime strategically deployed the label to advance its own agenda: the Ming emperor to assert imperial supremacy, the Chosŏn court to signal loyalty while protecting its maritime interests, and the Ashikaga shogunate to bolster domestic and international legitimacy. To sum up, I demonstrate that “piracy” was a fluid and contested discourse that bound the three states of East Asian diplomacy.