As a numbered series produced in a soft cover, it is easy to mistake Early Korea for a new journal, but no, it is a new book series in the field of Korean archaeology, published by the Early Korea Project at the Korea Institute of Harvard University. The Director of the Project, Dr. Mark E. Byington, is also Editor of the series, bringing together his vast knowledge of activity in the field with his excellent organizational capabilities. The books benefit from copious colour photos, good line drawings and maps, and excellent design – a masterful printing job by the Haingraph Co. Ltd. in Seoul and a real pleasure to hold and peruse.

Beginning publication in 2008 with the “generous support of the Northeast Asia History Foundation in Seoul, Korea”, two volumes have so far appeared: Early Korea 1: Reconsidering Early Korean History through Archaeology, 2008; Early Korea 2: The Samhan Period in Korean History, Dec. 2009 (ISBN 10: 097958003X; 13: 9780979580031). The first volume is reviewed here.

The Editor's Introduction to Early Korea 1 (EK1) states that the series is in general thematic, with a particular topic dealt with in several Featured Articles in each volume. In addition, non-thematic topics are also included in other sections. The main goal of publication is to present in English major developments in the field of Korean archaeology. Most of the articles are therefore written by native Korean scholars and translated into English. Unlike a translation volume, however, the authors are asked to address a specific topic in a newly written article. The featured articles thus form a more coherent unit than they might otherwise, but the Editors caution that the opinions expressed are those of the authors personally, acknowledging that there may be other views on the matters at hand.

The “Featured Articles” section in EK1 ostensibly addresses the theme “Reconsidering Early Korean History through Archaeology”. In reality, it focuses only on the Three Kingdoms period with Kang Hyun Sook writing on Koguryŏ, Kwon Oh Young on Paekche, and Park Cheun Soo on Kaya and Silla together. A second section entitled “Studies on Early Korean History & Archaeology” contains one article by Choi Jongtaik on ceramic technologies. A third section, “Studies from the Field” features two articles by non-Korean scholars on South Korea: a piece on rescue archaeology by Shoda Shinya, and one on the management of archaeological heritage by Martin T. Bale. Very usefully, these articles are followed by a biographical section at the end of the volume, introducing the pictured authors, their careers and publications.

In the first Featured Article, “New perspectives of Koguryŏ archaeological data” (EK1: 13–63), Kang begins with an overview of Koguryŏ that clearly assigns the origins of Koguryŏ to the historically known Ye tribe (in the upper Sungari River Basin) and Maek peoples. In so doing, he rejects the Chinese argument that Puyŏ was the sole source of Koguryŏ. Archaeologically, he identifies “piled-stone burials” at the Gangouzi cemetery in Jilin Province as the Bronze Age predecessors of the Koguryŏ “stone-piled tombs” [note the subtle difference in burial terminology]. Moreover, Iron Age remains from the Wudaoling Goumen site in Ji'an form the next link, with bronze daggers and iron implements found within tiered stone-piled tombs. It is not clearly stated why he thinks the Maek built “stone-piled tombs” except for the ostensible overlap in geographical distribution of the historical tribes and archaeological remains. In general, Kang states that Koguryŏ tombs developed “from vertical shaft-style to horizontal entrance-style and from stone-piled types to earth-mound types” (p. 16). The Chinese have asserted that all Koguryŏ kings were buried at Ji'an (the Kungnae capital). Kang rejects this with a detailed argument, concluding that roof tiles might be a key to dating the tombs, as they appear on the tops of the tomb mounds possibly associated with burial rituals and structures. Both stone-piled and earth-mounded tombs (fifth–sixth centuries) have yielded mural paintings, distributed further than originally thought into northeastern China and South Korea. Two areas of debate surround these: the sources of and influences on the paintings, and the identities of those occupying mural tombs.

According to the Samguk Sagi and Samguk Yusa, the early Koguryŏ capital is stated as Cholbon (in the Huanren region of Liaoning Province) with a move to Kungnae (in Ji'an City, Jilin Province) in 3 CE. Kang challenges both these statements. Researchers have identified Wunü Mountain Fortress in Huanren County as the historically recorded Hulsŭnggol-sŏng, which ostensibly protected Cholbon-sŏng (the suffix sŏng indicating fortress walls); however, Kang notes that excavation results place Wunü in the fourth century, no earlier. Cholbon-sŏng might be either the Xiaguchengzi or Lahacheng fortresses in Huanren, but neither have concrete archaeological data to support this. At Kungnae, the archaeological evidence indicates a date of fourth century CE, not the year 3 CE. Both Kungnae-sŏng and Shanchengzi sites are acknowledged as the Kungnae capital complex. The Koguryŏ physical presence in the old Lelang area before the removal of the capital to P'yŏngyang-sŏng in 427 is beginning to be debated, while there is much dissension between North and South Korean scholars as to the physical referent for P'yŏngyang-sŏng. A 2006 joint excavation by these scholars “did not produce any definitive proof that Anhak Palace was built directly after the movement of the capital to P'yongyang” (p. 37). Kang notes that the Anhak gridded palace and the Taesŏng mountain fortress were most likely paired, and that there continues to be debate over the coordination of archaeological and historical data, where the capitals were located and when they were moved. Kang states that each capital city contained a fortress located on the plains and a mountain fortress retreat; more of the latter were later built as military outposts or centres of provincial administration. He describes four types of fortress walls: “those constructed of wedge-shaped stones, those consisting of a rammed earth base surfaced with stone, those built of a mixture of both earth and stone, and those built of rammed earth” (p. 30).

It is well known that Koguryŏ artifacts are rare because the most lavish deposits in horizontal entrance-style tombs have been looted in the past. Nevertheless, North Korean and Chinese scholars have been developing ceramic studies based on Ronam-ni pottery prototypes; however, Kang notes that one stove-type ceramic construction is unique to Koguryŏ. He gives a cursory description of other bronze artifacts, ornaments, roof tiles and horse trappings attributable to Koguryŏ with leads to articles of more detailed study.

In “The Influence of recent archaeological discoveries on the research of Paekche history”, Kwon claims that the debate over the location of the early Paekche Hansŏng capital in the Han River basin has been solved: not Mongch’ŏn fortress but the P'ungnap fortress. Excavations in 1999 revealed walls calculably reconstructed to 11m height × 43m wide, while AMS dating indicates a late third-century CE construction date. Animal sacrifices (cows and horses), roof tiles and ritually disposed pottery – all described in detail – indicate elite presence and control of resources. Kwon notes, however, that the AMS dates have caused controversy, as they have in Japan concerning the beginning of the Yayoi period.

While the capital was at Hansŏng, Kwon argues that gifting of precious goods – a technique used by the Chinese court – was also employed by Paekche to bring regional rulers into alliance and under control. Interestingly, gifts seem to have been deployed according to distance and degree of subservience: gilt bronze crowns, shoes and Chinese ceramics for nearby regions under Paekche control but armour and bronze mirrors for more distant, independent regions. Despite a change in tomb structure – from stepped pyramidal tombs like Koguryŏ to Chinese-style horizontal chamber tombs – Kwon states there was no hierarchy of prestige in tomb construction as there was in Silla and Kaya. In the southwestern Korean peninsula, a different form of large tomb construction containing several massive jar burials indicated chiefly independence until the mid-sixth century when this area was incorporated into Paekche.

Kwon also discusses the sixth-century Japanese-inspired keyhole tombs in this region, which have raised much controversy about the relationship of Yamato or Wa to this area of the peninsula. He clearly assesses that the keyhole shape is derived from Japan (rather than the other way around as some scholars have argued). Moreover, he argues that the burial facilities resemble those of Kyushu. Debates swirl around the issue of who was buried in the tombs: Japanese, local rulers, or Paekche representatives, with no consensus in sight. Another mystery is posed by the Andong Tomb in Kohŭng region: with the deceased wearing a Paekche-style gilt bronze crown and Yamato-style armour. Kwon discusses the tomb in the context of Paekche's incorporation of the southwest as it moved its capitals southwards.

After the Paekche capital was removed to Kongju (Ungjin capital) in the Kum River basin in 475 CE, temporary interment of remains became the royal norm, with final burial after twenty-seven months from death. Data from the Muryŏng Tomb and Chŏngjisan site are marshalled to develop this theme, which is important also for the Japanese practice as known in the early Ritsuryō period. The second capital site at Puyŏ (Sabi capital) has yielded much information on Buddhist archaeology, with temple and artifactual evidence galore. Eight thousand ritual offerings have been recovered from the Wanghŭng Temple: a treasure trove for art and crafts research. One interesting facet of King Ch'ang's building of the Nŭng Temple was that he employed his sister to conduct “rituals for the sarira installed there. They acted with a mind toward encouraging the practice of Buddhist rituals in Paekche” (p. 93). Brother/sister dual-gender rulership, with females often having spiritual capacities, has recently been recognized for early Japan; this issue has not been raised in Korean archaeology yet, but a comparison would be interesting.

In “Kaya and Silla in archaeological perspective”, Park begins with a description of the Taesŏng-dong cemetery in Kimhae. This important mid-third through fourth-century tomb group yielded evidence of contact with China (bronze mirrors), Northeast Asia (bronze cauldrons), and Japan (bronze and talc elite artifacts) – the latter probably occurring in the context of the iron trade. Temporal shifts in artifact assemblages indicate shifting trade and alliance relations, specifically between Kuya-guk and Kyushu in the Samhan period but between Yamato and Kŭmgwan Kaya (Pon-kaya) from the mid-fourth century. Park interprets these exchanges in a detailed argument as an alliance between Yamato and Kaya fighting against Koguryo and Silla.

It appears that the Ponghwangdae hilltop fortress in Kimhae has been identified as the Kŭmgwan Kaya capital, named as Chongbal-sŏng in the chronicles. Located near the “royal” cemetery of Taesŏng-dong (containing human sacrifices), it has yielded “divination bones, horse bones, dross from iron manufacturing, and hajiki earthware from the Japanese archipelago, suggest[ing] the existence of ritual institutions, workshops, and trade centers” (p. 123).

The myriad wonderful prestige goods from the Silla tombs (58,191 objects from the Hwangnam double mound alone) have been known for decades, but Park analyzes these to elucidate “the relationships among the kingdoms of Silla, Koguryŏ, and Wa” (p. 124). He concludes that glass objects came via Silla's alliance with Koguryŏ, that sized ingots in Yamato tombs indicate a shift from Kaya to Silla iron trade, that gilt-bronze ornaments and horse trappings in Japan were manufactured by Silla craftsmen, and that jadeite beads on Silla crowns were imported from Japan. Finally he proposes that relations between Kawachi and Silla in the early fifth century were instrumental in establishing the Kawachi ruling house as a “new royal authority in the archipelago” (p. 135).

Later Kaya, represented by inland Tae-kaya, is little known, but Park examines its existence through the late fifth-century Chisan-dong tomb cluster, thought to be the royal cemetery. He notes that Tae-kaya materials replace Silla artifacts in Japan from the mid-fifth century, and that the Imna districts so subject to controversy in the Mimana debate were located between Tae Kaya and Paekche, not in the Yŏngsan River basin. These districts were subject to the first territorial struggles between the two polities from the early sixth century at the same time that Yamato-style tombs appear on the southern Korean coast and in southwestern Korea. Park is contradictory in his assessment of whether Yamato/Wa presence functioned to check on Paekche advances to the east or to help both Paekche and Tae-kaya in their struggles against each other – an interesting twist in the Yamato-Paekche alliance.

Park finishes with the Fujinoki Tomb in Japan, arguing that many of the gilt-bronze goods from this late sixth-century tomb were from Silla. This contradicts Japanese assessments that they came from Paekche, although young scholars analyzing Late Kofun horse trappings note their similarities with Silla in the main. Park's conclusions covering fifth- and sixth-century relations between the archipelago and peninsula are a welcome review of political events and material innovations during a period little treated in English.

These brief nuggets gleaned from the Featured Articles do not do justice to the range of topics, detail of information, and progression of arguments in the volume – well worth reading in its entirety.