The Archaeology of Korea (review)

210KOREAN STUDIES, VOL. 19 used in the classroom and will give the general reader some pleasure. But as an authoritative text on modern Korean history, the volume does not break new ground, nor does it summarize well the best scholarship on modern Korea. It will be useful as an additional weapon in our relatively empty arsenal of texts on modern Korea, but it remains a weapon that should be used with care and skepticism. Michael Robinson University of Southern California The Archaeology ofKorea, by Sarah Milledge Nelson. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1993. xvi + 307 pp. $24.95, paper. Nelson's review of Korean archaeology is probably the first monograph-sized attempt to summarize archaeological findings from Korea by a non-Korean scholar. While there have been several volumes discussing Korean archaeology written in western languages, a fresh introduction to Korean archaeology has been long overdue, especially in light of the interesting data turned up over the last two decades. As an "insider," one must confess that the rapid accumulation of new data in Korea makes it hard for anyone to say anything for certain anymore. In this sense, the author must be praised and sympathized with for her noble attempt to place Korea "on the map of archaeology" (p. xiii). For that purpose, after a rather lengthy introduction, chapter 1 describes the environment of Korea, both present and the past, and then discusses the archaeological past up to the unification of the peninsula by Shilla in a.D. 668. The Pleistocene prehistory of Korea is covered in chapter 3, while Neolithic problems are discussed in chapter 4 under the title "Early Villages." Using C-14 dates, the author defines 2000 b.c. as the temporal boundary between the Chulmun and Mumun "cultures." In chapter 5, the latter is said to continue until 500 b.c. At this point, one may criticize the author's almost blind reliance on carbon dating, when the stratigraphie contexts are disputed in too many cases. Chapter 6 attempts to lump together the Early Iron and Proto Three Kingdoms periods (as they are commonly called in Korean archaeology ) under the heading "Iron, Trade, and Exploitation: 400 b.c. to a.D. 300." This and the following chapters best demonstrate the author's weakness in treating Korean data. During this period, Korea was changing into a complex society. Recent research has centered upon this critical period, but the author here fails to demonstrate her grasp of the major issues involved. Chapter 7, entitled "Three Kingdoms: a.D. 300-668," offers brief accounts of the history BOOK REVIEWS211 and some important archaeological findings for each political entity. This chapter is too short to cover the vast and complex issues in the history and archaeology of this period. The final chapter, by way of a conclusion, tries to assess the thorny issue of the formation of Korean ethnicity but, as might be expected, it ends by reaffirming the need for more research to provide the answers. Throughout the volume, the author has apparently tried to incorporate as much new data as possible. However, the book still appears overall to be a rather superficial treatment of Korean archaeology, flawed by many errors. This may dash the author's hope that it would serve as a guidebook for newcomers to Korean archaeology. The problems of the book are most aptly illustrated by Figure 2.2, in which the Imjin River is depicted as a tributary of the Han River. Similarly, one must point out that Kyöngju, the capital of the ancient kingdom of Shilla, is not in the Naktong River basin but in the upstream area of the Hyöngsan River (pp. 17, 19). It will also come as news to many Koreans that the legend of Tangun says that he "became a spirit in Chonji" (p. 156). While such factual errors might be regarded as trivial, a more serious problem may lie in the author's apparently limited command of the Korean language; perhaps she is not fluent enough to read a lot of academic literature. Throughout the volume, a limited number of (mostly secondary) sources written in English are heavily quoted, so that mistakes or disputed arguments are...