Introduction

According to its creation myth, Goguryeo (高句麗, 37 BCE – 668) was founded by Jumong (朱蒙), later King Dongmyeongseongwang (東明王, r. 37 – 19 BCE) who traveled southwards from the ancient state of Buyeo (夫餘, 2nd century BCE – 494). Jumong arrived at Jolbon (卒本), which was located in the middle reaches of the Amnok River (鴨綠江, also called the Yalu River), and, through alliances with various indigenous groups in the region, came to exercise hegemony over that area. A comprehensive examination of various historical sources reveals that, at that time, the middle reaches of the Amnok River were home to an indigenous group called the “Na” (那) that developed into a significant independent regional polity prior to the appearance of the group led by Jumong. A successful integration with the “Na” enabled Jumong and his followers to establish Goguryeo. In this sense, the indigenous communities of the middle reaches of the Amnok River can be regarded as the driving force behind the formation of Goguryeo.

The representative burial type of the earliest phase of Goguryeo is the stone-piled tomb (積石墓), which is distinct from the stone cist burial (石棺墓) and earthen pit burial (土壙墓) of the former territory of the ancient state Buyeo. This method of burial seems to have been widely used in the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River before the establishment of Goguryeo, indicating that an independent cultural sphere may have existed prior to the arrival of Jumong. The absence of stone cist burials and earthen pit burials in this region suggests that Buyeo migrants, including the group led by Jumong, may have adopted the local burial traditions (i.e., the stone-piled tomb) to integrate with the indigenous communities.

This paper considers the formation of a Proto-Goguryeo society by examining the origins of Goguryeo stone-piled tombs. The appearance of stone-piled tombs will be considered in association with cultural transformations of the time in order to understand the cultural foundation of Proto-Goguryeo society. The relationship between the stone-piled tombs and the indigenous communities of the region will be analyzed to determine whether the core group of Proto-Goguryeo was composed of migrants or by a consolidation of communities that traditionally resided in the region.

Stone Cairn Sites of the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Amnok River

Early-period Goguryeo stone-piled tombs consist of an above-ground stone burial platform (where the deceased was laid to rest) that was covered with a large pile of stones (Fig. 2). An above-ground burial chamber set atop the stone platform is characteristic of stone piled tombs, which distinguishes this type of tomb from the dolmen, stone cist, or earth-cut burial—the latter types featuring burial chambers located underground or directly on the ground surface.

Fig. 1. Wangjianglou burial ground in Huanren (Author’s photograph)

Fig. 2. The plan and artifacts from Xiahuolong (下活龍) Tomb 8, in Ji’an (not to scale). Cultural Relics (文物) 1984-1, p. 68: a) Sword with ring pommel (length: 46 cm); b) Iron axe (length: 11 cm); c) Iron sickle (length: 18 cm); d) Arrow quiver (length: 34 cm); e) Belt buckle

Various symposia and research papers have explored the origin of Goguryeo stone-piled tombs. Bronze Age stone-piled burials of the southwestern coastal region of the Liaodong Peninsula (遼東半島) and the stone cairns (石堆) of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River are the two types of burials that have garnered the greatest interest in relation to the origin of Goguryeo stone-piled tombs. The possibility that Goguryeo stone-piled tombs may have originated from the stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula was initially proposed by North Korean archaeologists (Jeong Chanyeong 1973, 13-17 and 51-53) and has been corroborated by the subsequent research of South Korean, Japanese, and Chinese scholars. However, significant differences exist between the two types of burials, even though both are referred to as “stone-piled” burials or tombs. For example, the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs feature stone platforms erected on the ground; by contrast, stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula were established directly on the ground surface without the use of stone platforms. The most significant difference between the two is that the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs feature burial chambers with a single interment, whereas the stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula were communal graves with multiple burial chambers, each chamber containing multiple interments. In addition, the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs and the stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula are spaced far apart in terms of both location and date.

North Korean archaeologists appear to have been aware of this dissonance, for they expressed hope that future discoveries would uncover new sites that would reduce the temporal gap between the two. As if in answer to their wish, sites with stone cairn features were discovered in the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River in the 1970s and 1980s. North Korean archaeologists interpreted these stone cairns as a type of “stone-cairn burial” (dolmuji mudeom) and proposed that they be considered the missing link in the evolution from stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula to Goguryeo stone-piled tombs (Park Jinwuk 1988, 114-117).

The opinions of North Korean archaeologists had a significant influence on archaeological discourse in South Korea and Japan. Japanese archaeologists proposed that stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula evolved into Goguryeo stone-piled tombs (Azuma Ushio 1997, 97-98) or that Goguryeo stone-piled tombs originated from the stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River (Tamura Kōichi 1990, 151-155). Whereas Japanese archaeologists considered either stone-piled burials or stone cairns as the origins of Goguryeo stone-piled tombs, South Korean archaeologists maintained that a causal link could be established between the two.

Ji Byongmok proposed that the stone cairns of the lower reaches of the Amnok River had been built by groups that had migrated from the Liaodong Peninsula where stone-piled burials had traditionally been used. These groups are believed to have moved further into the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River where they constructed stone-piled tombs (Ji Byongmok 1997, 10-30; 2005, 69-94). However, Kang Hyunsook suggested that inherited cultural traditions may have been the mechanism for the evolution of the stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula into the stone cairns of the lower and middle reaches of the Amnok River, and eventually into the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs (Kang Hyunsook 1999, 27-46).

Ji Byongmok focused on the migration of populations, while Kang Hyunsook focused on the inheritance and transmission of cultural traditions; however, both accept the presence of a causal link among the stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula, stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River, and the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs. They both regard the stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River and the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs as belonging to the same category of burial. Both North and South Korean archaeologists believe that the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs originated from the stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River that had evolved from the stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula.

Chinese archaeologists currently regard the Hun River (渾江) region and the main waterway of the Amnok River separately when considering the origins of Goguryeo stone-piled tombs. It is posited that dolmens in the Hun River region were influenced by the stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula and evolved into stone-piled dolmens. Consequently, the stone-piled tombs of the region are believed to have originated from stone-piled dolmens, whereas the stone-piled tombs of the main waterway of the Amnok River are believed to have originated directly from the stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula (Li Xinquan 2009, 3-8). Differing in view from North and South Korean archaeologists, Chinese archaeologists do not associate the stone-piled tombs with the stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River, despite their assertion of a direct link between Goguryeo stone-piled tombs and the stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula.

The crux of the debate concerning the origin of Goguryeo stone-piled tombs is how to interpret the stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River. The sites with the type of stone cairns, which North and South Korean archaeologists consider identical to the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs, are concentrated in the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River. The “middle-type bronze daggers” (a transitional type between the Liaoning-type bronze dagger and the Korean-type bronze dagger), bronze spearheads, and bronze mirrors have been found at these sites, but discoveries of iron artifacts are very rare (Oh Kangwon 2002, 14-24; Yeo Hokyu 2002, 115-119). This illustrates that the stone cairn sites may have been established at the time when the transition from bronze culture to iron culture took place.

Table 1 presents the stone cairn sites of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River. Except for the structure from the Wudaolinggoumen site in Ji’an, which has been reported as a “stepped stone-piled tomb with a square platform” (方壇階梯積石墓), no other structures from these sites have been reported as stone-piled tombs. The structures from the sites of Xifangshen in Xiuyan and Dadianzi in Huanren were both reported as stone cist burials; in addition, the burial chambers identified at the sites of Xiaochenjia in Fengcheng as well as Paoziyan and Sipingjie in Kuandian are similar to the stone cist burials. Among these structures, those featuring stone cairns may be referred to as “stone-piled stone cist burials” (積石石棺墓); however, they cannot necessarily be regarded as identical to the early stone-piled tombs of Goguryeo.

The Wudaolinggoumen stone structure is the focus of significant attention regarding the origins of Goguryeo stone-piled tombs. From the outside, this structure looks like a stepped stone-piled tomb, but it differs considerably from the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs in terms of its topographic situation and the nature of its burial chamber. This site also yielded bronze artifacts (e.g., a dagger, an axe, a mirror, spearheads), which are not present in the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs. Consequently, the burial structures of the stone cairn sites of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River are most likely stone cists. If only the grave goods are considered, the Wudaolinggoumen stone structure is also closer in nature to stone cist examples.

The Wanfabozi (萬發撥子) site in Tonghua (通化), Jilin Province is also of interest (China State Administration of Cultural Heritage 2001, 25-30). In total, six cultural layers have been identified at this site, of which the Late Bronze Age1 layer yielded bronze daggers and bronze spearheads similar to examples from the Wudaolinggoumen site. A variety of burials occurred in this layer, but a stone-piled tomb was absent. It is in the early Goguryeo layer of this site that the stone-piled tombs were identified, along with large stone-covered, stone-piled tombs (大石蓋積石墓), indicating that the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs may have emerged after the Late Bronze Age.

Therefore, the structures of the stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River and the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs cannot be regarded as the same type of burial. As a consequence, the argument that the origins of the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs can be traced back to the stone-piled burials of the Liaodong Peninsula via the stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River also becomes untenable. The early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs have rarely yielded bronze artifacts (e.g., daggers, spearheads, mirrors), though iron farming tools and weapons are frequently discovered in such tombs. This indicates that the construction of the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs may have followed the spread of iron culture.

One notable aspect of the stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River is that many were covered with stone piles even though the majority of the structures are stone cist burials with burial chambers located below, or partly below, ground. This suggests that the tradition of embellishing burials with stone piles—a central feature of the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs—can be traced back to this period.

The Spread of Iron Culture into the Middle and Upper Reaches of the Amnok River

Iron culture was introduced into Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula around the fourth to third century BCE as a result of the expansion of Yan (燕) into the Liaodong region. Yan (11th century – 222 BCE) was one of the contenting states of China’s Warring States period (戰國時代, 475 – 221 BCE). At the time, the Gojoseon (古朝鮮) territory had been constricted to the northwest region of the Korean Peninsula, and a cultural transformation involving the replacement of Liaodong-type bronze daggers by Korean-type bronze daggers had also taken place. Such developments further spread to the eastern mountain areas of the Liaodong region where Goguryeo originated (Lee Namkyu 2005, 17-50).

This situation is well reflected in the middle-type bronze daggers frequently found in the area; such daggers represent a transitional type and feature elements of both the Liaoning-type and the Korean-type bronze dagger. In particular, many examples of the “B-style” middle-type bronze dagger, which sport a blade with a straight upper section and a groove at the lower section, have been found in the area, in association with Yan iron artifacts and other related items (Lee Chungkyu 1993, 10-18; Oh Kangwon 2002, 17-24). This reflects the situation of the early to mid-third century BCE, when Yan iron culture spread through the Liaodong Plain and was introduced into the northeast area of the Liaodong region.

Two main areas of distribution are observed for the “B-style” middle-type bronze dagger: the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range (天山山脈), and the upper reaches of the Liao River (遼河) and the middle and upper reaches of the Songhua River (松花江) (Fig. 3). In the latter area, two of the four sites also yielded iron artifacts, demonstrating that the communities of this area adopted iron culture from the Liaodong region (with which they had maintained contact from an early date). By contrast, iron artifacts were found at only two of the ten sites of the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range. It is also likely that the iron arrowheads from the Wudaolinggoumen site (one of the two sites with iron artifacts) were later inclusions (Park Jinwuk 1988, 116; Lee Namkyu 2005, 41-43). This reveals that although it had spread to the Taizi River (太子河) area near the Liaodong Plain around the period of florescence of the “B-style” middle-type bronze dagger, iron culture had not fully penetrated into the southeastern part of the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range. In this latter area, bronze spearheads and mirrors incised with leaf patterns, rather than iron artifacts, have been found at sites yielding “B-style” middle-type bronze daggers. These artifacts are likely to have been indigenously produced, given the large number of molds for leaf-decorated bronze mirrors and bronze spearheads excavated from the Xiadouling site (小都嶺) in Tonghua (Man Chengzhi 1987, 68-70). The leaf pattern appears to have been a shared cultural element of this area, since it is also observed in pottery artifacts (Park Soonbal 1997, 7). The population groups of the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range likely maintained a close cultural affinity among themselves around the time of the transition from bronze culture to iron culture.

Fig. 3. Distribution map of the sites with “B-style” middle-type bronze daggers.2 Study of the Political History of the Early Goguryeo (고구려 초기 정치사 연구) (Seoul: Sinseowon, 2014, p. 106)

The eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range can be divided into two parts: the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River (the birthplace of Goguryeo); and the areas to the west comprising the lower reaches of the Amnok River and the middle and upper reaches of the Taizi River. In the first to third centuries, the Proto-Goguryeo groups of the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River were referred to as the “Daesumaek” (i.e., the Maek people of the great water; 大水貊), and the groups residing further west were referred to as the “Sosumaek” (i.e., the Maek people of the small water; 小水貊) or the “Yangmaek” (梁貊, Ch. Liangmo). Both of these groups were known as “Maek” (貊, Ch. Mo), probably because they shared close cultural affinity between themselves compared to other groups of the “Yemaek” (濊貊, Ch. Huimo) people. The Proto-Goguryeo communities emerged out of the “Yemaek” people through many stages of fissuring. Since they came to be called “Guryeo” (句麗), they can be referred to as the “Guryeo ethnic group” (句麗種族), separate from the neighboring “Yemaek” communities.

The distribution of groups by the name of “Maek” appears nearly identical to the distribution of the “B-style” middle-type bronze daggers. This indicates that communities that went by the name of “Maek” and used “B-style” middle-type bronze daggers and the leaf motif were present in the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range prior to the appearance of Proto-Goguryeo groups. These communities may have actively interacted against the political backdrop of the early to mid-third century BCE—i.e., Yan’s expansion into the Liaodong region and the constriction of the Gojoseon territory—and established a closely related cultural sphere.

The eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range features sites with “B-style” middle-type bronze daggers as well as numerous sites with Ming knife coins (明刀錢) (Table 3). Ming knife coins have been found at sites distributed over a wide area that extend from Hebei Province in China to the northwest region of the Korean Peninsula, and various discussions have taken place concerning the nature of these sites (Park Sunmi 2009, 19-26). In the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range, approximately twenty sites with Ming knife coins have been identified, but sites yielding both “B-style” middle-type bronze daggers and Ming knife coins have yet to be observed (Table 3). This indicates that, at least in this region, there was an interval between the prevalence of “B-style” middle-type bronze daggers and that of Ming knife coins.

In the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range, iron artifacts are almost non-existent in sites with “B-style” middle-type bronze daggers, whereas they have been recovered in great number in those sites with Ming knife coins. These iron artifacts commonly consist of cast-iron farming tools and weapons in the Yan tradition (Lee Namkyu 2005, 35-41). Therefore, it is possible to suggest that the full-scale spread of iron culture into the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range took place when the sites with Ming knife coins were established, rather than at the time when “B-style” middle-type bronze daggers were widely used.

In this respect, the Choushuidong (抽水洞) site in Huanren Manchu Autonomous County is of interest because it has yielded a large number of coins along with iron artifacts in the Yan tradition. Of the excavated coins, 280 were Ming knife coins with angled backs (折背式), which appeared at a later date than those with crescent backs (弧背式). Anyang square-footed spade coins (安陽方足布), which are considered to be the latest of the Chinese spade money (布錢), as well as round coins marked with “一化” (一化錢) minted between 226 and 222 BCE, at the end of the Warring States period (475 – 221 BCE), were also present at this site (Wang Sizhou 1990, 104-105). In the case of Banliang coins (半兩錢), which were first minted in the Warring States period, the examples from the Liaodong region are believed to date to the Qin Dynasty (秦, 221 – 206 BCE), following the unification of China by Emperor Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇, r. 246 – 221 BCE) in 221 BCE.

The presence of coins dating to both the late Warring States period and the Qin Dynasty as well as the contrasting absence of coins from the Han Dynasty (漢, 206 BCE – 221) makes it possible to date the Choushuidong site to the late third century BCE, around the time of the transition from the Warring States period to the Qin Dynasty. This indicates that the sites yielding Ming knife coins in this region began to be established in the late third century BCE, concurrently with the full-scale adoption of iron culture in the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range.

Recently, weapons dating to the end of the Warring States period have been found at sites in the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River. Among the excavated examples, the Qin bronze dagger-axes appear to be related to Qin expansion into the Liaodong region, whereas the Zhao (趙) bronze daggers and dagger-axes seem related to the displacement of communities at the time of the Qin-Han transition. Such weapons demonstrate that the impact of these political events had reached the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River. It is assumed that the transition from bronze culture to iron culture that took place in the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range was associated with the spread of Ming knife coin sites and appearance of displaced populations at the time of the transition from the Warring States period to the succeeding Qin and Han Dynasties.

The sites of Wanfabozi in Tonghua and Wunu Mountain Fortress (五女山城, Kr. Onyeosanseong) in Huanren also yielded similar results. In total, six cultural layers were identified at the Wanfabozi site; the Late Bronze Age layer has been attributed to the end of the Warring States period, around the third century BCE, and the Early Goguryeo layer containing iron artifacts to the second to first century BCE, corresponding to the Western Han period (西漢, 206 BCE – 9 CE) (Oh Kangwon 2004, 163-164). Of the five cultural layers identified at Wunu Mountain Fortress, the Late Bronze Age layer dates to the fourth to third century BCE, and the Early Goguryeo layer containing iron artifacts to the second century BCE to the first century CE (Liaoning Provincial Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Relics 2004, 49-72 and 284-285).

The Late Bronze Age and Early Goguryeo (i.e., Iron Age) cultural layers of these two sites correspond to the Warring States and Western Han periods of China, respectively. This result also concurs with the finding that a transition from bronze culture to iron culture took place in the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range at the time of the transition from the Warring States period to the Qin and Han Dynasties. Therefore, a full-fledged adoption of iron culture in the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range, including the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River, is estimated to have occurred at the end of the third century BCE, slightly later than in other areas of the Liaodong region.

The Emergence of the Groups that Constructed Stone-piled Tombs and the Formation of a Proto-Goguryeo Society

The eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range remained in a phase of bronze culture until the third century BCE, and then entered into a phase of iron culture around the time of the transition from the Warring States period to the Qin and Han Dynasties. Because bronze daggers and spearheads make only a limited appearance in early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs—in contrast to the frequent appearance of iron tools (including farming tools) and weapons as grave goods—it can be assumed that the construction of the stone-piled tombs began in the late third century BCE.

Some of the sites that have yielded Ming knife coins are closely related to early Goguryeo sites. For example, Ming knife coin fragments were recovered from the layer covering a Bronze Age house and from an Iron Age pit at the site of Nonam-ri in Nampa-dong, where early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs and dwelling sites were identified. Such coins were also found alongside spade money and Han-Dynasty coins near Taewangneung Tomb in Ji’an. In addition, coins of the Warring States period marked with “明化” or “一化” were discovered along with Han-Dynasty coins in a pit located below the floor of a stone-piled tomb with square platform near Seodaechong Tomb (Gu Bing 1964, 83-84). These Ming knife coins and other coins of the Warring States period were found in the vicinity of Goguryeo stone-piled tombs (rather than inside such tombs) or near the early Goguryeo dwellings. Besides, Warring States-period and Han-Dynasty coins were found together near Taewangneung and Seodaechong Tombs. This indicates that the Ming knife coins and the other coins of the Warring States period may have been transmitted to Goguryeo communities around the first century CE.

It is possible that some of the burials containing Ming knife coins may have been identical in nature with the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs. The construction method of the stone cairn (3.6 meters in diameter) at Yongyeon-dong in Wiwon-gun is similar to that of Goguryeo stone-piled tombs in terms of the stone platform placed directly on the ground. In addition, Ming knife coins were found within a stone cairn set on bedrock at Jungam-dong in Jeoncheon (with another stone cairn located nearby). Consequently, many scholars have interpreted the structures of Yongyeon-dong and Jungam-dong to be stone-piled tombs.

Figure 4 reveals that stone-piled tombs appear in high frequency along the banks of the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River. However, these tombs have rarely yielded artifacts useful in dating the structures. Many of the early stone-piled tombs sustained damage or had collapsed due to flooding, since most of them were constructed on natural levees that ran alongside the waterways. Fortunately, it has been possible to date with relative accuracy the tombs of Gangouzi (干溝子) in Changbai (長白) (Figs. 5 and 6), and Wangjianglou (望江樓) in Huanren.

Fig. 4. Distribution of early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs in the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River. Study of the Political History of the Early Goguryeo (고구려 초기 정치사 연구) (Seoul: Sinseowon, 2014, p. 125)

Fig. 5. Gangouzi burial ground (Author’s photograph)

Fig. 6. Tomb 2 of the Gangouzi burial ground in Changbai. Archaeology (考古) 2003-8, p. 50

Located in the uppermost reaches of the Amnok River, the Gangouzi tombs consist of fifty-two stone-piled tombs which lie adjacent to each other (Jilin Provincial Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Relics 2003, 45-66). The stone-piled tombs were erected upon a layer of small rocks that marked the boundaries of the common burial unit. The main tomb platform stood at the center, and additional platforms, attached one to the next, were constructed around this main platform (Fig. 6). In this respect, the Gangouzi burials seem to represent communal graves, in contrast to other examples of Goguryeo stone-piled tombs; they have thus been linked with the communal graves of the Bronze Age stone-piled burials of the southern Liaodong Peninsula.

Each stone-piled tomb appears to be individual in nature, however, as evidenced by the large stones and protective stones that line the perimeter of each tomb as well as by the stone platform separately constructed for each tomb. These tombs should therefore be regarded as individual burials “attached” to the main stone platform at the center, rather than as constituting a communal grave. The stone platform of each of these tombs was made of worked stones or river stones that formed the foundation in addition to the smaller river stones that were used to construct the rest of the platform and the burial chamber. In that sense, the construction method of the Gangouzi tombs is similar to that of the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs.

Of these fifty-two attached tombs units, seven units were excavated in 2001; even so, a total of sixty-four tombs can be said to have been excavated, if each stone platform comprising the tomb unit is regarded as a separate stone-piled tomb. These stone-piled tombs contained burnt human remains, as well as such artifacts as pottery, coins, and objects made of bone, stone, iron, bronze, and jade (Table 4). However, these tombs yielded relatively few metal artifacts compared to other early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs.

The five coins marked with “一化” from Stone Platform 2 of Tomb 5 in District B, and the twelve coins marked with “一化” and the eighteen Banliang coins from Stone Platform 3 of Tomb 2 in District A provided key information regarding the dates of the tombs. The coins marked with “一化” were minted between 226 and 222 BCE, right at the end of the Warring States period (Wang Sizhou 1990, 104-105). The Banliang coins from this site have diameters of 2.6-3.2 centimeters and are estimated to be Qin or early Western Han coins. Such evidence makes it possible to date the Gangouzi burial ground to the late third to early second century BCE.

The only iron artifacts recovered from the Gangouzi burial ground were three knives and one axe, indicating that the adoption of iron culture was severely restricted, mostly likely due to the geographic conditions of the site, which is located in the uppermost reaches of the Amnok River. Since each of the burial structures is essentially identical to the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs, the Gangouzi burial ground can be regarded as an example showing how the construction of stone-piled tombs began at the end of the third century BCE, along with the introduction of iron culture.

The Wangjianglou stone-piled tombs yielded a large number of imported objects along with tempered reddish brown pottery, an indigenous pottery type of the region. The bead ornaments are similar to examples excavated from the Han-Dynasty settlement of Sandaohao (三道壕) in Liaoyang (遼陽), and the tombs of Xichagou (西岔溝) in Xifeng (西豊) and Laoheshen (老河深) Phase 2 in Yushu (楡樹). The glass earring ornaments are similar to those from Sandaohao and Laoheshen Phase 2, and the bronze bell is similar to that from Xichagou. The gold earring is almost identical to the examples from Xichagou and Laoheshen Phase 2. Overall, the imported objects found within the Wangjianglou stone-piled tombs are slightly earlier in date than the related examples from Laoheshen, and are virtually contemporaneous with examples from Xichagou (Liang Zhilong and Wang Junhui 1994, 76).

The Wangjianglou stone-piled tombs can be dated to around the first half of the first century BCE, taking into consideration the dates of the establishment of the Xichagou and Laoheshen Phase 2 burial grounds. Consequently, the Wangjianglou stone-piled tombs are estimated to have been constructed at a date later than the Gangouzi stone-piled tombs, which date from the end of the third century to the first half of the second century BCE. It is therefore possible that the Wangjianglou tombs were built after this burial type had been firmly established, rather than being of a transitional type during the early stage of stone-pile tomb construction.

Regarding the origin of the deceased buried in the Wangjianglou stone-piled tombs, the numerous imported artifacts excavated from these tombs deserve particular attention. Various discussions have focused on the identity of those buried in the Xichagou and Laoheshen tombs, which yielded similar imported artifacts; the general consensus is that those buried there had come from Buyeo (Lee Jongsu 2009, 198-239). The historical records concerning the large-scale migration of displaced Buyeo communities (including the group led by Jumong) southwards into the Amnok River region at the time of the foundation of Goguryeo suggest that those buried in the Wangjianglou stone-piled tombs likely were also individuals that had migrated from Buyeo (Liang Zhilong and Wang Junhui 1994, 78; Yeo Hokyu 1996, 62).

If so, then it becomes possible to explain the unfamiliar elements of the Wangjianglou stone-piled tombs in relation to specific burials used by individuals originally from Buyeo. Since the Bronze Age, the burials of the Buyeo region (e.g., stone cists burials, stone pit burials, earthen pit burials) had mostly been sited on mountain ridges or summits, with burial chambers located underground. The tombs of Xichagou, for example, which share similarities with the Wangjianglou stone-piled tombs, are earthen pit burials set on the ridge and summit of a low mountain, and the earthen pit burials of Laoheshen were also located on a hill. Therefore, the unfamiliar elements of the Wangjianglou stone-piled tombs (i.e., tomb location and burial chamber construction mode) may have originated from the burial traditions of Buyeo.

If those who constructed the Wangjianglou burial ground built early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs based on the Buyeo burial tradition, it can be assumed that stone-piled tombs were widely popular in the Huanren Basin region around the first half of the first century BCE when this burial ground was constructed. Stone-piled tombs that can be securely dated earlier than the first century BCE have yet to be found in the Huanren Basin region; however, given the nature of the Wangjianglou burial ground and the Gangouzi burial ground, it is possible that earlier tombs will be identified in future excavations.3

Albeit limited in number, the findings from existing excavations make it probable that the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs were constructed around the end of the third century BCE, accompanied by the expansion of sites with Ming knife coins and the adoption of iron culture. If that indeed proves to be the case, it is also possible to consider the possibility that the migrant groups responsible for the spread of iron culture replaced the existing communities in the region and initiated the construction of the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs.

Of particular significance in this regard is the continued sequence of cultural layers dating to a number of different periods identified at both Wanfabozi and Wunu Mountain Fortress. Each of the layers features distinct artifacts, but the bowl-shaped ceramic vessel—representative of the common base culture of the sites—is observed in nearly all of the cultural layers, suggesting that the base culture of Goguryeo was established upon the region’s existing indigenous culture (Oh Kangwon 2004, 166-167).

It is thus more probable that the indigenous communities of the region, rather than migrant groups, were essentially responsible for the adoption of iron culture and the construction of the stone-piled tombs. In this respect, it must be taken into account that the local tradition of embellishing burials with stone piles extends back to the Late Bronze Age. For example, the majority of the structures of the stone cairn sites of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River (dating to the period of “B-style” middle-type bronze dagger use) were stone cist burials, many of which were covered with stones. Dolmens also developed into stone-piled tombs with large covers.

Early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs appear to have developed out of (or under the influence of) this local tradition of embellishing burials with stone piles. The indigenous communities that had resided in the region since the Bronze Age must have evolved a new type of burial that derived from their existing cultural background and transformed it into what archaeologists refer to as “stone-piled tombs,” this transformation happening as those indigenous communities were also adopting iron culture. The distribution area of the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs (Fig. 4), which ranges over the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River, corresponds almost exactly to the boundaries of Proto-Goguryeo territory as well as to the distribution area of the “B-style” middle-type bronze dagger in the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range, except for the middle and upper reaches of the Taizi River and the lower reaches of the Amnok River. Of the people collectively referred to as “Maek,” therefore, the “Sosumaek” (of the lower reaches of the Amnok River) and the “Yangmaek” (of the middle and upper reaches of the Taizi River) cannot be included in the group responsible for the construction of the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs.

Fig. 7. Plan of Wangjianglou Tomb 4 in Huanren. Northeast History and Geography (東北史地) 2009-1, p. 4

With the introduction of iron culture, the “Maek” communities that had emerged in the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range in the early and mid-third century BCE likely were divided into two groups: the Proto-Goguryeo communities of the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River and the communities located farther west. The former actively adopted iron culture and constructed stone-piled tombs, thereby establishing an independent cultural sphere distinct from the latter. Referred to as the “Daesumaek,” this group was also called “Guryeo” (句麗), and developed Proto-Goguryeo society which laid the foundation for the Goguryeo state.

Conclusion

Various scholars have regarded the Bronze Age stone-piled burials of the southwestern coastal region of the Liaodong Peninsula and the Late Bronze Age stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River as the origin or the equivalent of the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs. However, the stone-piled burials of the southwestern coastal region of the Liaodong Peninsula are communal graves erected above ground, and the stone cairns of the middle and lower reaches of the Amnok River are derived from the tradition of stone cist burials; therefore, neither can be regarded as similar to the stone-piled tombs. In addition, the absence of typical bronze artifacts (e.g., bronze daggers, spearheads, mirrors) and the presence of various iron artifacts in the early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs indicate that the construction of these stone-piled tombs began after the spread of iron culture into the region.

The political upheaval that occurred around the early and mid-third century BCE, following the Yan expansion into the Liaodong region, encouraged the formation of a cultural sphere that shared certain elements, such as the “B-style” middle-type bronze dagger, leaf pattern, and pottery with band-shaped lugs. It is likely that the communities of this region responded to changes in the political landscape based on the bronze culture of the preceding period and strengthened their cultural affinity. These communities were the “Maek” people (i.e., “Daesumaek,” “Sosumaek,” and “Yangmaek”) of the first to third century. It appears that a population group commonly referred to as “Maek” was present in the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range prior to the formation of the Proto-Goguryeo society.

Bronze culture continued to predominate in the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range until the early and mid-third century BCE. The full-scale adoption of iron culture took place at the time of the transition from the Warring States period to the Qin and Han Dynasties, toward the end of the third century BCE, alongside the migration of displaced communities and the spread of Ming knife coins. Early Goguryeo stone-piled tombs began to appear about this time, with limited distribution in the middle and upper reaches of the Amnok River—i.e., the birthplace of the Goguryeo state.

The roots of Goguryeo society can be found in the population group that began to construct stone-piled tombs in association with the adoption of iron culture; this group is believed to have split from the “Maek” people that resided in the eastern region of the Tianshan Mountain Range. The Proto-Goguryeo communities emerged out of the “Yemaek” people though many stages of fissuring, and came to be called “Guryeo” (句麗). In this sense, they can be referred to as the “Guryeo ethnic group” (句麗種族)—separate from the neighboring “Yemaek” communities—and the society that developed from this group can be regarded as the Proto-Goguryeo society that laid the foundation for the Goguryeo state.