This is the second volume in the new book series entitled Early Korea, the first volume having been reviewed in the IJAS issue of January 2011 (vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 108–11). Early Korea 2 is equally impressive in its production and follows a similar layout to the former of several sections, starting with “Featured Articles” containing three entries, then one entry each in “Sources in Translation”, “Studies on Early Korean History & Archaeology”, and “Studies from the Field”. These section titles are useful in distinguishing the scope and methodology involved in the writings: “Featured Articles” tend to be data-oriented but broad in scope and synthesizing in nature, while the other three sections focus on one single text, site and discipline respectively.

All but the last section concern the time period of the subtitle: the Samhan period (also known as the Late Iron Age or Proto-Three Kingdoms). The “Editor's Introduction” reviews the research problems and progress in resolving issues about the Samhan. Therein Byington gives the dates of this period as 300 BC to AD 300 – twice as long as is usually quoted in English-language sources (AD 0–300). In doing so, the period covers part of the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age and also encompasses the early political influences of China on the Korean Peninsula: the Wiman/Weiman Chosŏn state and the Han Dynasty commandery of Lelang, both located in the northwestern peninsula. The archaeology of the Samhan period is just coming to fruition, yielding rich information with which to judge the historicity of the texts dealing with Samhan: the Weizhi 魏志 of China compiled in the late third century AD, and the Samguk Sagi of Korea, compiled in the twelfth century AD.

The Samhan polities (Mahan, Chinhan, and Pyonjin [aka Pyŏnhan]) have long been known from the “Dongyizhuan” 東夷傳 (“Eastern Barbarians Records”), Chapter 30 in the Weizhi, one of the Chinese Three Kingdoms annals in the Sanguozhi 三國志. Though long ago translated into Korean and Japanese, the records detailing the Samhan are translated into English for the first time here by Mark Byington, with the Chinese text reproduced next to the English. This translation is an enormous contribution to the field and will surely stimulate more careful critique of both text and archaeology in future.

One of the first efforts in this direction is JU Bo Don's Featured Article “Problems Concerning the Basic Historical Documents Related to the Samhan”. Not only does he analyse the structure of Chapter 30 (which he refers to as the Han Account), but also discusses six other texts that are contributed to or are related to that chapter – in particular comparing Chapter 30 with the Early Records section of the Samguk Sagi. Despite outlining clear imitations of Chapter 30, Ju promotes the historicity of the Chinese document compared to the later Korean account. Ju ends on an optimistic note, pointing out that writing brushes and a paring knife that might have been used to shave wooden tablet surfaces have been found at the Taho-ri site, encouraging the idea that wooden-tablet texts might yet be found for the Samhan period. YI Young Hoon's “Tomb 1 at the Taho-ri site in Ch'angwŏn” gives a detailed and richly illustrated presentation of the finds from this site, which have revolutionized ideas about the nature of Samhan society.

The first two Featured Articles take a more theoretical approach to this “proto-historic” period: “proto-historic” because both textual sources and archaeological data are drawn upon; and “theoretical” because they deal with state formation as a socio-political phenomenon not limited to the Korean Peninsula. YI Hyunhae's “The Formation and Development of the Samhan” and LEE Jaehyun's “The Interregional Relations and Developmental Processes of Samhan Culture” both begin with Late Bronze Age remains, tracing the stages of development from chiefly centralized polities to polities with hierarchical settlement patterns integrated into long-distance trade relations. In the former article, excavated material from Sarari and Choyangdong sites especially provide new and enhanced understanding of third-century political and economic issues. In the latter article, several trade networks (Yellow Sea, Northeast Asia, Japan) are examined through time.

The volume is concluded by AHN Hwi-Joon's “Dr. KIM Chae-wŏn and Professor KIM Won-yong and Their Contributions to Art History”, providing biographies of two scholars whose seminal works initiated the discipline of art history in Korea from the early twentieth century but particularly in the post-war period. Both were originally trained as archaeologists, and the relations between archaeology and art history remain closer in Korea than most other countries – where archaeology is usually more related to history or anthropology.