108 book reviews

Early Korea 1: Reconsidering Early Korean History through Archaeology.

Edited by Mark E. Byington. Early Korea Project, Korea Institute, Harvard University, 2008.
Pp. 239. Distributed by the University of Hawai‘i Press.
ISBN 10: 0979580013; 13: 9780979580017.
Reviewed by Gina L. Barnes, SOAS, University of London
E-mail gb11@soas.ac.uk
doi:10.1017/S1479591410000355

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” fea-
tures 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 pic-
tured 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 devel-
oped “from vertical shaft-style to horizontal entrance-style and from stone-piled types to earth-mound
 book reviews 109

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 dat-
ing 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 moun-
tain 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 pot-
tery – 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 subser-
vience: 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
110 book reviews

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 sar-
ira 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, specifi-
cally 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 exist-
ence 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 manufac-
tured 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
 book reviews 111

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 pres-
ence 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.

Behind the Veil: Resistance, Women and the Everyday in Colonial South Asia.
Edited by Anindita Ghosh. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Pp. 288.
ISBN 10: 0230553443; 13: 9780230553446.
Reviewed by Yumiko Tokita-Tanabe, Global Collaboration Center, Osaka University
E-mail tokita.tanabe@gmail.com
doi:10.1017/S1479591410000367

This volume is a result of a conference organized by Anindita Ghosh in Manchester in Summer 2004.
The contributors to the volume, Padma Anagol, Geraldine Forbes, Tanika Sarkar, Siobhan
Lambert-Hurley, Clare Anderson, Nita Verma Prasad and Anindita Ghosh, attempt to explore ways
in which “women . . . imaginatively scrutinize and critique the social world that they experience,
and give voice to it in subversive expressive traditions or actions” (p. 2).
Ghosh begins the Introduction by pointing out how Indian women have been “silenced doubly” in
the colonial context (p. 1). The colonial state justified its rule by drawing up an image of the weak
and vulnerable Indian women in need of rescuing from their oppressive tradition. Then from the late
nineteenth century onwards, nationalists constructed women as the repositories of Indian culture
and tradition on which their identity was based. In both renderings, “women emerge as unresisting,
inert, and passive objects of defining discourses, as people without any control over their lives”, and
when they are seen to be assertive, they are “either participants in larger mass struggles under the
tutelage of their male peers. . ., or unusual eruptions within a conventional social fabric” (p. 2).
The present volume is intended to challenge such existing images of women in colonial India “by
offering a backdrop of ‘invisible’ but consistent gendered resistance against which to map the more
well-known outbursts of the organized radical feminist movement, or of outstanding female public
figures” (p. 4). For this purpose, it takes up the project of looking at “everyday resistance”, following
the works of Haynes and Prakash (1992) and Scott (1985),1 and extends this notion to look into the

1 D. Haynes and G. Prakash eds., Contesting Power: Resistance and Everyday Social Relations in South Asia (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1992); J. C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1985).