Introduction
Recent scholarly discussion concerning the historiography of Mahan (馬韓) have centered primarily on two interrelated issues – the timing of the formation of Mahan and the date of its incorporation into Paekche (百濟). Of these, the theory that Paekche annexed Mahan in 369 CE has attracted the most extensive research attention.1 However, recent archaeological findings suggest that Mahan polities in the Yŏngsan River basin remained active well into the 6th century, necessitating a more nuanced reassessment of this hypothesis.
Debates over the formation of Mahan have primarily drawn upon archaeological data. Broadly, two predominant hypotheses have emerged regarding the emergence of Mahan society. One posits its formation during the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE, while the other situates it in the 2nd to 1st centuries BCE. These interpretations are primarily grounded in recent archaeological discoveries in the Hoseo region.2 Some scholars identify the advent of the Chŏmto-tae t’okki (Attached-rim Pottery) Culture in southern Korea as indicative of the initial emergence of Mahan,3 whereas others frame Mahan’s formation within the broader diffusion of Late Kojosŏn culture, which began to manifest in the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE.4
Nevertheless, scholarly understanding remains limited concerning the mechanisms through which Late Kojosŏn culture was introduced into the Hoseo region and how it contributed to the development of Mahan society. This issue is further compounded by the lack of contemporaneous written records, obscuring efforts to establish definitive correlations between the sociopolitical evolution of early Mahan and the material culture associated with Late Kojosŏn.
In light of these issues, the present study undertakes a critical reassessment of prevailing interpretations concerning the formation and development of Mahan. By integrating archaeological findings with historical sources, this study seeks to bridge the longstanding disciplinary divide that has often limited comprehensive understandings of early polities on the Korean Peninsula. Furthermore, by situating the emergence of Mahan within the broader geopolitical and cultural dynamics of Northeast Asia during the early first millennium BCE, this research aims to provide a more historically grounded and analytically nuanced reconstruction of Mahan’s sociopolitical trajectory and cultural identity.
Review of Key Debates: Mahan Formation and Developmental Phases
In the historiography of ancient Korea, reconstructing the historical development of Mahan has long posed a challenge due to the absence of foundational textual sources. Since the 1990s, however, the growing availability of archaeological data has significantly advanced efforts to piece together Mahan’s history. Despite these strides, the precise timing of Mahan’s societal formation remains one of the most contentious and unresolved issues in the field.
Textual studies generally concur that Mahan, along with Pyŏnhan and Chinhan, emerged as part of the Samhan configuration following the decline of Chin-guk (辰國) in the 2nd century BCE. This consensus is largely derived from passages in the Records of the Three Kingdoms (三國志), specifically in the Book of Wei, “Accounts of the Eastern Barbarians” (魏志東夷傳).
Within this framework, the dynastic upheaval of Kojosŏn in 194 BCE, marked by the ascension of Wiman and the flight of King Chun to the south, is viewed as a pivotal juncture. King Chun’s subsequent self-styling as the Han King (韓王) has been interpreted to suggest that a distinct Han identity predated his migration.5 According to this view, an early Han polity already existed in the southern Korean Peninsula by the late 3rd century BCE and King Chun merely integrated into this existing sociopolitical landscape.6 And the nomenclature “Mahan” is thought to have emerged as a distinguishing term during the subsequent segmentation of broader Han identity into Chinhan, Pyŏnhan, and Mahan. Furthermore, Mahan has been interpreted as the dominant entity among the Samhan, functioning as a kind of suzerain polity. Some scholars argue that the character “Ma” (馬), which may convey the meaning of “great” or “large,” implies that Mahan is synonymous with Taehan (大韓), reinforcing its status as the most influential among the Samhan polities.7
Archaeological research over the past two decades has brought renewed attention to the longevity and spatial extent of Mahan. For example, findings presented at the 10th Honam Archaeological Conference in 2002 and the Archaeology Division of the 2006 History Conference demonstrated that the distinctive mounded tombs (墳丘墓) found in the Honam region were primary mortuary structures for Mahan’s elite classes.8 The continued use of these tombs until the early 6th century CE suggests a more protracted and expansive view of Mahan’s historical presence.
This “expanded Mahan theory” has gained traction in recent academic discourse, particularly through conferences organized by the Mahan Research Institute and the Jeonnam Cultural Heritage Research Institute. Furthermore, the designation of the Mahan Cultural Zone under the Special Act on the Maintenance of Historical and Cultural Heritage has redefined its geographical scope to encompass Chŏllanam-do, Chŏllabuk- do, and Ch’ungch’ŏng provinces.9
In line with these developments, the Introduction to Mahan Archaeology (2018), published by the Central Institute of Cultural Heritage, proposed a four-stage chronological framework for the development of Mahan: Formative, Early, Middle, and Late stages. This publication advanced a revisionist chronology, proposing that Mahan’s origins date back to the 5th to 4th centuries BCE, with significant consolidation occurring by the 3rd century BCE.10
These ideas were further substantiated at the 2019 Honam Archaeological Conference, during which the expanded Mahan theory was reaffirmed. Presentations at the conference suggested that Mahan culture originated in the 3rd century BCE, persisted in the Chŏnbuk region until the late 4th century CE, and endured in the Yŏngsan River basin until the early 6th century CE.11 Furthermore, there is growing academic support for the argument that Mahan should not be under stood solely as the entity described in Chinese historical records (such as the Records of the Three Kingdoms) but, in addition, as a continuous indigenous cultural tradition in the Chŏllanam-do region that persisted even after Paekche developed into an early state.12
A major recent development in this scholarly trajectory was the 2023 conference hosted by the Wanju National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage.13 The keynote address offered a comprehensive synthesis of previous scholarship, integrating textual and archaeological perspectives on Mahan’s formation and evolution. Thematic sessions explored critical questions related to the socio-cultural dynamics of Mahan in the Chŏnbuk region, focusing particularly on its transformation into a regional power. Of particular note was the rigorous discussion of issues such as the conceptualization of Mahan’s formative phase, the characteristics of its indigenous cultural foundation, and the role of external influences.
According to Yi Chong-chŏl, the introduction of the Attached-rim Pottery culture to the southern Korean Peninsula in the 5th century BCE marks a transitional phase characterized by cultural adaptation and transformation. He interprets this period as one in which exogenous cultural influences from the Liaodong region were gradually acculturated and locally integrated. On this basis, Lee argues that the formation of Mahan as a distinct socio-political entity likely began as early as the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE.14
Lee argues that the cultural identity of early Mahan was primarily characterized by the attached-rim pottery tradition and the Korean-style bronze dagger complex. During the 4th century BCE, the appearance of kŏmp’a-hyŏng tonggi (bronze split bamboo-shaped artifacts), nap’al-hyŏng tonggi (trumpet-shaped bronzes), and chomun kyŏng (bronze mirrors with coarse linear designs), particularly of the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage, attests to transregional influences. By the 3rd century BCE, however, a notable process of indigenization had occurred, as evidenced by the emergence of Chŏngmun kyŏng (bronze mirrors with fine linear designs) and palju-ryeong (bronze ritual bells). These developments signify a dynamic process of cultural localization in which external and local elements were synthesized into a distinctive regional tradition.15
This interpretation, however, contrasts with that of Kim Kyu-jŏng,16 who identifies the emergence of Mahan through funerary assemblages, specifically, chŏksŏk-mokkwakmyo (stone-covered wooden coffin burials), that feature co-occurring attached-rim pottery and slender bronze daggers. The crux of the divergence between Lee and Kim lies in their differing assessments of the Korean-style Bronze Dagger (Slender Bronze Dagger) Culture and whether it constitutes an indigenous development or reflects an external cultural intrusion. Despite these differences, both scholars agree that the indigenization of the Slender Bronze Dagger Culture involved a synergistic interplay between the exogenous Attached-rim Pottery Culture and the native Songguk-ri cultural tradition. This interaction facilitated the consolidation of the Korean-style bronze tradition and led to increasing diversification in burial practices. They also concur that religious and ritual systems underwent processes of regional adaptation, ultimately becoming embedded in local sociocultural frameworks.
In early Mahan society, the division between Chinhan and Pyŏnhan is generally understood to have originated when migrant populations seeking to escape corvée labor during the Qin-Han transition in China settled in the eastern territories of “Han” (i.e., Mahan).17 However, in the early 2nd century BCE, when King Chun fled southward, the Records of the Three Kingdoms referred to the area not as Mahan but as the “land of Han”. This is interpreted as reflecting the fact that the distinction between Mahan and Chinhan had not yet been clearly articulated.
Scholars have thus posited that the entire southern peninsula was referred to as “Han” during King Chun’s southern migration, and that Mahan represented an undivided Han polity prior to the emergence of Chinhan and Pyŏnhan.18 This implies the existence of a proto-Han political structure in the Hoseo region by the 3rd century BCE, which retained its coherence into the 2nd century BCE. The arrival of Kojosŏn and Central Plain migrants subsequently catalyzed the restructuring of this early Han polity, resulting in the differentiation of Samhan into Mahan, Chinhan, and Pyŏnhan.
The formation of Chinhan and Pyŏnhan is further associated with the spread of the Korean-style bronze dagger tradition into the Yeongnam region, a phenomenon that is archaeologically attested to be from the 2nd century BCE. By the 3rd century CE, when the Records of the Three Kingdoms was compiled, both polities are interpreted to have developed into autonomous regional powers.19 Taken together, the available evidence supports the argument that Mahan likely emerged between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE,20 with a proto-Han polity potentially predating this period. Within this framework, the Samhan confederacies are understood to have originated as segmentary chiefdoms that evolved into more complex polities over time.21 Based on the foregoing discussion, the following interpretation may be offered regarding key recent debates on the formation of Mahan and its chronology.
Amid East Asia’s geopolitical transformations during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, marked by the Qin-Han dynastic transition and the rise of Wiman Josŏn, nascent Han polities on the Korean Peninsula were likewise drawn into broader regional realignments. This period may be understood as a transitional phase in which political authority shifted from the indigenous elites of the Hoseo region, who had previously represented early Han society, to a southward-migrating group affiliated with King Chun. Under this new leadership, the political differentiation between Chinhan and Pyŏnhan was initiated, signifying the formal onset of the Mahan period.
Accordingly, the development of Mahan society may be analytically divided into two phases: the proto-Han sociopolitical formations of the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE and the subsequent consolidation of Mahan as a regional polity in the 2nd to 1st centuries BCE, catalyzed by the influx of migrants associated with King Chun. This study interprets the early Han polity as corresponding to the Chin-guk (辰國) mentioned in historical records, providing a continuous analytical framework for understanding the emergence and evolution of Samhan polities. The following section offers a more in-depth analysis of this issue.
Korean-style Bronze Dagger Culture and the Sociopolitical Formation of Early Han (韓) Society
As is well known, the Bronze Age culture of the southern Korean Peninsula underwent notable transformations beginning in the 4th century BCE. Within the Songguk-ri cultural horizon—long regarded as the core tradition of the Southern Korean Bronze Age—material elements associated with Liaoning-style bronze daggers from the Liao River basin became increasingly prominent. These changes are particularly evident in the transition from the Liaoning-style to the Koreanstyle slender bronze dagger tradition, the growing prevalence of stone-covered wooden coffin burials, and the emergence of composite cultural assemblages, including attached-rim pottery, huksaek mayeon janggyeongho (black-burnished long-neck jars), and other components commonly identified with the so-called Zhengjiawazi-type material culture of Late Kojosŏn.
Subsequently, with the decline of the indigenous Songguk-ri culture, a new residential pattern, typified by the so-called Suseok-ri type, began to emerge, accompanied by the widespread diffusion of the attached- rim pottery tradition. Amid this transformative setting, the Korean-style bronze dagger tradition, which developed from these shifts, rose to prominence as a defining form of cultural expression.
Recent archaeological research suggests that the decline of Songguk-ri culture exhibited regional variation. In the Hoseo region, the tradition appears to have persisted until approximately the 2nd century BCE, while in parts of the Honam and Yeongnam regions, its remnants endured into the turn of the era. Notably, vestiges of the culture have also been identified on Jeju Island as late as the 2nd century CE.22 Although the dynamics between Songguk-ri culture and Attached-rim Pottery culture (Suseok-ri type) remain unclear, current evidence indicates that the expansion of Suseok-ri did not lead to the uniform decline of Songguk-ri culture.23
Prior to the southward migration of King Chun, the southwestern Korean Peninsula, which formed the foundation of early Han society, continued to exhibit strong vestiges of the Songguk-ri tradition as late as the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE. Around the early 2nd century BCE, a transitional phase emerged, marked by a gradual shift toward a new cultural configuration typically associated with the Early Iron Age. Accordingly, the Korean-style bronze dagger culture, which first appeared in the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE, may be interpreted as having originated through the localization of Kojosŏn’s bronze technology (specifically, the slender bronze dagger tradition) by late-phase Songguk-ri elites based in the Hoseo region.
In light of this, particular attention should be paid to the sources summarized in Tables 1–3. According to the Weilüeh (魏略), as cited in the Records of the Three Kingdoms, Kojosŏn appears to have been in a state of antagonism with the state of Yan during the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE. During this period, Kojosŏn, much like contemporaneous states in the Central Plains of China, likely sought to legitimize and elevate royal authority by asserting itself as a centralized political power. This ideological drive may have underpinned the emergence of a distinct bronze cultural sphere in Kojosŏn, differentiated from those of surrounding regions. The assemblages of slender bronze daggers, bronze mirrors with fine linear designs, and ritual implements identified primarily in the southwestern Korean Peninsula exemplify the refinement and originality of the so-called Korean-style bronze dagger culture as it evolved from Kojosŏn’s bronze tradition.
Archaeological data from this period are primarily derived from key sites in the Hoseo region, including Tongsŏ-ri in Yesan, Namsŏng-ri in Asan, Koejŏng-dong in Taejŏn, Hoam-dong in Ch’ungju, and Sŏnje-ri in Kunsan. These sites contain stone-covered wooden coffin burials (chŏksŏk-mokkwanmyo), a mortuary tradition emblematic of Late Kojosŏn. Based on their typological features and associated grave goods, these burials are generally dated to the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE.24
However, settlement sites associated with the builders of these tombs have rarely been discovered, making it difficult to reconstruct the daily lives of these communities. Nevertheless, the identification of nearby settlements linked to the late Songguk-ri culture allows for more nuanced interpretations. As will be discussed below, this pattern suggests that local Songguk-ri populations played a significant role in facilitating the southward expansion of Late Kojosŏn’s bronze culture into the southern Korean Peninsula. Bronze mirrors from the Korean Peninsula, particularly those classified as the Chŏngmun kyŏng type, are understood to have developed from earlier Kojosŏn-style coarse linear-design mirrors, and are interpreted as ritual paraphernalia linked to contemporaneous shamanistic belief systems.25 Accompanying these mirrors are slender bronze daggers, widely regarded as elite weapons symbolizing political authority. In early state-level societies, the exchange or bestowal of such prestige items often served to establish military alliances or diplomatic relations.
In early Korean polities, such as Kojosŏn and the Samhan confederacies, in which multiple political entities coexisted within a single sociopolitical configuration, efforts were made to establish efficient confederative systems through diplomatic exchange. Among these, high-value prestige goods and luxury items served as symbols of authority and wealth. These items were frequently interred as grave goods, rendering them highly visible in the archaeological record.26 In this context, the value of prestige goods extended beyond material worth to function as instruments of elite display, reflecting the ruling class’s monopolization of interregional exchange networks.27
Late Kojosŏn society, characterized by the coexistence of diverse cultural and ethnic groups, may be seen as a polity formed through the interaction of relatively autonomous political entities.28 Accordingly, it is plausible that Kojosŏn strategically employed prestige items, such as slender bronze daggers and bronze mirrors, to forge military alliances and diplomatic relations with neighboring groups. Furthermore, the widespread appearance of stone-covered wooden coffin burial (a key mortuary type of Late Kojosŏn) within Songguk-ri cultural zones, where such items were interred, suggests closer military and diplomatic integration between Late Kojosŏn and local Songguk-ri communities.
Amid its confrontation with Warring States–period Yan, Kojosŏn likely sought more stable and effective alliances with neighboring polities. In this context, it seems to have focused particularly on the Songguk-ri society in southwestern Korea, the dolmens, stone-cist burials, and Liaoning-style bronze daggers of which display strong affinities with Kojosŏn’s formative material culture.29 This group is often identified with the Chin-guk mentioned in historical sources, and is considered the historical predecessor to the Samhan confederacies.
According to the Records of the Three Kingdoms, Chinhan is regarded as a continuation of the former Chin-guk (Table 1–7), while The Book of the Later Han (後漢書) states that all three Han confederacies were founded upon the legacy of Chin-guk (Table 1–9). These sources attest to the earlier existence of Chin-guk prior to the emergence of the Samhan polities. Although the exact timing of its formation remains uncertain, the Records of the Three Kingdoms (Table 1–5) recounts an episode in which Josŏn Chancellor (朝鮮相) Yeok Gye-gyeong (歷谿卿) led his followers eastward to seek refuge in Chin-guk during the late Wiman Josŏn period amid conflict with the Western Han. This suggests that Chin-guk remnants remained active at least until the late 2nd century BCE.30
If Chin-guk is recognized as an early polity predating the Samhan confederacies, it can be seen as the counterpart of the early Han society described above. Its political foundation may be traced to the Korean-style bronze dagger culture that emerged in the Hoseo region during the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE.
Within this historical and cultural context, the Late Kojosŏn bronze culture, particularly the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage, is thought to have spread into the Hoseo coastal region, a central area of the Songguk-ri tradition, where it gave rise to the Korean-style bronze dagger culture. This cultural tradition then expanded gradually in multiple phases. Early examples include stone-covered wooden coffin burial at sites such as Dongseo-ri in Yesan, Namseong-ri in Asan, Seonje-ri in Gunsan, Goejeong-dong in Daejeon, and Hoam-dong in Chungju, which are generally dated to the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE. Tombs from the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE are found at sites in northern Honam, including Chŏnju and the Kaldong site in Wanju, and along the Yŏngsan River basin, including Taegok-ri and Paegam-ri in Hwasun, and Ch’opo-ri and Sangok-ri in Hamp’yŏng. Related sites in the Yeongnam region date to the 2nd to 1st centuries BCE. This distribution pattern illustrates how the Korean-style bronze dagger culture, derived from Late Kojosŏn bronze traditions, originated in the Hoseo coastal region and spread to surrounding areas in regionally differentiated phases.
Sociopolitical Transformations in Kojosŏn and the Formation of Han The Cultural Character and Expansion Trajectory of Kojosŏn
In light of recent research that situates the emergence of formative Mahan culture within the broader trajectory of Kojosŏn’s cultural expansion, it becomes essential to first delineate the defining features and ethnocultural identity of Kojosŏn itself. Contemporary Korean archaeological scholarship predominantly characterizes Kojosŏn culture through its mortuary practices and bronze technological traditions. Current interpretations suggest that Kojosŏn’s cultural system can be broadly divided into two distinct lineages, differentiated by material typology and regional variation.31
The first lineage is represented by the indigenous cultural tradition of the Liaodong–northwestern Korean region, typified by dolmens and stone-cist burials. This tradition is understood as a regionally rooted political system grounded in a sedentary agricultural economy and ancestral worship practices.32 The second lineage pertains to the political formations of the Liaoxi region, which incorporated elements of the so-called Northern Steppe-type Bronze Age cultures. These are characterized by burial traditions such as stone-covered wooden coffin burials or stone-lined tombs (wooden coffins with stone enclosures), along with shamanistic belief systems symbolized by bronze mirrors. Historical records identify these groups collectively as Yemaek (濊貊) or, more specifically, as the Ye (濊) and Maek (貊) peoples.
From an archaeological perspective, the formation of Kojosŏn is often interpreted as a process wherein the Bronze Age culture originating west of the Liao River, specifically the Shiertaiyingzi culture (十二台营子文化: Maek-affiliated lineage), expanded eastward into the Liao River basin, as seen in the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage, gradually integrating with various local groups (Ye-affiliated lineages) in the eastern Liao region.33
The Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage, which expanded from the Liaoxi region, exhibits a composite cultural character shaped by the fusion of Northern Steppe elements (e.g., bronze ornaments), shamanic belief systems (e.g., bronze mirrors and ritual implements), and the indigenous traditions of the Liaodong region.34
The mode of subsistence appears to have been based on a semi-sedentary lifestyle incorporating broad-field agriculture, along with hunting, fishing, and limited pastoralism. From the perspective of early Chinese observers, the steppe-related cultural traits and lifestyles exemplified by the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage were distinguished from those of local groups east of the Liao River (i.e., the Ye-affiliated lineages), who practiced ancestor worship through dolmen burials and funerary rituals. As a result, these steppe-associated communities were recorded under the ethnonym “Maek,” reflecting their perceived northern cultural identity.
The term “Maek” was generally used in pre-Qin Chinese texts as a generalized ethnonym for populations residing in the northern frontier regions of China. However, the Bronze Age cultural complex that emerged in the Liao River plain during the 6th to 4th centuries BCE, identified as the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage, was also regarded as a branch of the Maek cultural tradition. Within this cognitive framework, the term “Maek” came to designate these western groups in contrast to the indigenous populations east of the Liao River, who were separately identified as “Ye.”
In sum, the steppe-influenced Bronze Age culture that expanded from the Liaoxi region, as represented by the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage and linked to Maek-affiliated groups, came to constitute the core tradition of Kojosŏn society. By contrast, the indigenous cultural elements of Liaodong and the northwestern Korean Peninsula, notably those linked to dolmen and stone-cist burial traditions, may be regarded as the substratum of Kojosŏn, later forming the cultural basis for groups identified with the Ye lineage.
Meanwhile, the presence of late-phase elements of the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage, such as the Sangbochon-type,35 in which slender bronze daggers and bronze mirrors (of Liaoxi origin) are found as grave goods in indigenous stone-cist burials (of Liaodong tradition), appears to reflect the evolving identity of Maek-affiliated groups, that were gradually becoming integrated with northeast indigenous populations associated with the Ye lineage. This transformation is reflected in the evolving terminology used in early Chinese records (e.g., 發 → 亳 → 貊 → 濊貊). In this context of ongoing interaction and competition with various Chinese polities, Kojosŏn progressively consolidated surrounding Ye-Maek–affiliated petty polities, ultimately forming a distinct bronze cultural sphere. This process likely strengthened Kojosŏn’s political influence and ideological cohesion across the broader region.
This development ultimately provided the foundation for stronger political ties with polities in the southern Korean Peninsula that shared similar ideological identities. It also served as a critical backdrop for the emergence of a new peninsula-centered worldview, marked by the formation of Han. The formation and development of early Han society, therefore, should be understood in relation to this newly articulated worldview, which was shaped through interactions with surrounding regions and closely linked to the rise of the Korean-style bronze dagger culture. These issues will be examined in greater detail below.
The Formation of Han: Articulating a New Peninsula-Centered Worldview
As previously examined, understanding the rise of early Han society within the broader trajectory of Kojosŏn’s cultural expansion requires an examination of the historical and temporal factors that facilitated its diffusion into neighboring regions. As indicated by sources 1 and 2 in Table 1 (e.g., 管子), the geopolitical transformations in Manchuria during the 7th century BCE, and particularly those related to Duke Huan of Qi’s northeastern campaigns during the Spring and Autumn period, provided a crucial historical backdrop for the formation of the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage.36 This development coincided with climatic fluctuations in the Liao River basin and marks what scholars have termed the “first phase of expansion,” during which early Kojosŏn communities in the Liaoxi region extended their influence into Liaodong and began to evolve into complex chiefdoms.37
Source 3 in Table 1 highlights a subsequent stage in the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE, when Kojosŏn, amid intensifying rivalry with the Warring States polity of Yan, began to assert itself as a royal state and sought to consolidate cultural and political ties with surrounding Ye-Maek–affiliated polities. During this period, Kojosŏn’s adoption of the royal title ‘King’ (自稱爲王) led to diplomatic tensions with Yan. The historical reference to Daebu Ye (大夫禮), a figure who intervened in the conflict, suggests that Kojosŏn projected itself to the wider world as a centralized polity with institutional features comparable to those of contemporaneous Chinese dynasties.
During this period, the two polities that bordered one another in the northwestern region of Manchuria appear to have maintained a complex relationship marked by exchange, competition, confrontation, and conflict. Amid broader instability in the Central Plains of China, Kojosŏn’s economy and state power are understood to have experienced significant growth. However, around the 3rd century BCE, Kojosŏn suffered defeat in a war with Yan, resulting in the loss of much of its western territory (see sources 3 and 4 in Table 1). This event is commonly interpreted as a turning point that led to the southward migration of Kojosŏn-affiliated populations into the Hoseo region, where they introduced the slender bronze dagger tradition. This, in turn, is seen as giving rise to the Korean-style bronze dagger culture.
However, this study offers an alternative interpretation. Rather than viewing the emergence of the Korean-style bronze dagger culture merely as the product of southward migration by defeated Kojosŏn-affiliated groups, it may be more accurately understood as a reflection of Late Kojosŏn’s expanding military and diplomatic influence into neighboring regions. Recent scholarship has increasingly coalesced around the view that Korean-style bronze dagger culture in the Hoseo region emerged in the latter half of the 4th century BCE. This period aligns with what is widely considered the zenith of Late Kojosŏn, a time when the polity entered into direct rivalry with the Warring States polity of Yan and formally asserted its status as a royal state.
As a material expression of Late Kojosŏn identity, the Korean-style bronze dagger culture is characterized by three defining features: (1) innovations in weaponry, including the slender bronze dagger and bronze spearheads, as well as technological advances in bronze mirror production (transitioning from bronze mirrors with coarse linear designs to those with fine linear designs); (2) the formalization of Liaodong-style ritual pottery, such as attached-rim pottery and black-burnished long-neck jars, reflecting shared ritual ideologies and funerary practices; and (3) the construction of stone-covered wooden coffin burials, in which these assemblages consistently appear.
Although stone-covered wooden coffin burials, associated with the upper elite of Late Kojosŏn, are dispersed in small clusters at key sites, corresponding large-scale settlement remains have yet to be identified. This suggests that their expansion was not the result of large-scale migration but rather a series of targeted, small-scale advances motivated by military and political objectives. In light of these findings, the emergence of the Korean-style bronze dagger culture, rooted in the Late Kojosŏn tradition, may be situated within the broader historical context of regional cultural transformation.
During the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE, in the context of escalating rivalry with the Yan state, Kojosŏn sought to consolidate Ye-Maek–affiliated groups in neighboring regions by forming mutually reinforcing alliances with local polities. This diplomatic strategy was mediated through the exchange of prestige goods, particularly slender bronze daggers and bronze mirrors, and is thought to have included late-phase Songguk-ri groups in the Hoseo region, archaeologically identified with Chin-guk. Slender bronze daggers, bronze mirrors with fine linear designs, and various ritual implements represented a technologically advanced assemblage for their time, functioning both as elite weapons and as symbols of religious and ideological systems. When found in association with stone-covered wooden coffin burials, these prestige items are interpreted as material reflections of the spiritual and sociopolitical identity of the communities that adopted them.38 Comparable patterns can be observed during the first phase of Kojosŏn’s cultural expansion, represented by the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage, when the chŏksŏk-mokkwanmyo (stone-covered wooden coffin burial) tradition, along with multi-knobbed bronze mirrors (associated with shamanic cosmologies), was transmitted from the Liaoxi region to the indigenous Ye societies in Liaodong.
This phenomenon is better understood not simply as the movement of refugee groups following military defeat or the migration of a few bronze artisans, but rather as a deliberate expansion of Kojosŏn’s central authority, driven by political objectives and supported by military power. In particular, the frequent discovery of multi-knobbed bronze mirrors, typically interpreted as insignia of chieftain-level leadership in early Kojosŏn, in stone-covered wooden coffin burials across the Hoseo region suggests that the leaders of regional polities associated with the Korean-style bronze dagger culture, or early Han society, either held comparable status or were kin-related to elite lineages in Kojosŏn. These individuals may have been appointed directly by the king of Late Kojosŏn to serve as regional military chieftains, thereby legitimizing their local authority.
These figures may be understood as high-status individuals akin to those described in the Records of the Three Kingdoms, not kings per se, but leaders referred to as sinji (臣智), eupcha (邑借), and jangsu (長帥), who exercised considerable authority at the regional level (see source 11 in Table 1). It is likely that they secured their legitimacy as regional chieftains either through the direct bestowal of prestige goods, such as slender bronze daggers and bronze mirrors, by King Chun or earlier Kojosŏn rulers, or through strategic trade relations.
In conclusion, the emergence of the Korean-style bronze dagger culture and, by extension, early Han society, should not be viewed merely as the result of interregional cultural exchange. Rather, it reflects the expansion of reciprocal military and diplomatic alliances among regional polities. Viewed in this light, Late Kojosŏn may be interpreted as an early form of decentralized state organization, in which a central authority coexisted with semi-autonomous local polities through reciprocal political relations and a degree of shared cultural cohesion.39
Accordingly, if the sociopolitical base underlying the Korean-style bronze dagger culture is to be identified with Chin-guk, as recorded in historical sources, then its identity can be understood as that of a regional polity whose chieftain-class leaders maintained military and diplomatic alliances with Kojosŏn. In this context, the flight of King Chun, the last ruler of Late Kojosŏn, to the land of Han (韓地) may be interpreted as a strategic move to secure his political survival within the sphere of influence of his former ally, Chin-guk, where he could more reliably plan for the future under comparatively stable conditions.
This development may be interpreted as an attempt by King Chun to reassert his authority over the appointment of early Han chieftains within Chin-guk, while simultaneously articulating a new peninsula-centered geopolitical worldview, distinct from that of Kojosŏn, as a means to reclaim the legitimacy he once held as the unifying leader of the Ye-Maek confederation prior to Wiman’s usurpation of power. However, this political initiative was short-lived. Following the collapse of the Jun faction, indigenous forces regrouped and established the Mahan confederacy, with Mokji-guk emerging as its political and ideological nucleus (see source 10 in Table 1). The king of Mokji-guk, as leader of this reconstituted alliance, not only extended the peninsula- centered worldview originally advanced by the King of Han but also reaffirmed the distinct identity of the indigenous lineage. In doing so, he asserted continuity with the political legitimacy of Chin-guk and reestablished the authority of the Jin-wang as the paramount figurehead of the Samhan confederation.
Conclusion
The foregoing discussion has offered a preliminary examination of key issues and challenges related to the historical reconstruction of Mahan, focusing particularly on the cultural identity and sociopolitical character of early Mahan society. The conclusion is presented in the form of a summary of the main arguments discussed above.
First, this study identifies the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage, expanded into the Liaoxi region during the 7th to 6th centuries BCE, as the core material tradition of Kojosŏn society (First Phase of Kojosŏn Expansion: Maek-affiliated lineage). Given this framework, the contemporaneous indigenous cultures of the Liaodong region and northwestern Korean Peninsula, typified by dolmen and stone-cist burials, may be interpreted as foundational strata of Kojosŏn society. Specifically, these groups are understood to have shared the ideological identity of the Ye lineage, particularly in their emphasis on mortuary rites and ancestor worship.
Second, the background behind the emergence of the Korean-style bronze dagger culture, recognized as the Second Phase of Kojosŏn’s expansion and centered in the Hoseo region, may be attributed to ideological networks rooted in the foundational structure of Kojosŏn society. During the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE, when the Korean-style bronze dagger culture began to take shape, Late Kojosŏn actively sought to consolidate Ye-Maek–affiliated groups amid rising geopolitical tensions with the Warring States polity of Yan. In this context, Kojosŏn forged military and diplomatic alliances with emerging polities in the Hoseo region by distributing prestige items such as slender bronze daggers and bronze mirrors, symbols of both elite status and ideological affiliation.
During this period, the Hoseo region was in the late phase of the Songguk-ri culture and maintained a ritual system centered on dolmen and stone-cist burials, reflecting a strong emphasis on ancestor worship. This mortuary tradition corresponds ideologically with the foundational practices of Kojosŏn society, particularly the dolmen-based ancestral rites associated with the Ye lineage. The shared ideological identity embedded in these mortuary practices became further consolidated during the First Phase of Kojosŏn’s expansion, represented by the Zhengjiawazi-type assemblage.
Although the core culture of Kojosŏn was undergoing reorganization during this time, transitioning toward the Zhengjiawazi-type tradition, its ideological networks rooted in dolmen burials and ancestor worship appear to have remained widespread. These belief systems continued to exert influence across Liaodong, Jilin, and throughout the Korean Peninsula, illustrating the enduring ideological coherence of Ye-affiliated communities. Therefore, the emergence of the Korean-style bronze dagger culture, understood as the Second Phase of Kojosŏn’s expansion, must be seen as deeply rooted in the ideological and ritual networks established among foundational communities. These networks served as the basis upon which chieftain-level elites of the Late Kojosŏn confederation (those associated with the Korean-style bronze dagger tradition) were able to assert their presence and develop political authority in the Hoseo region.
How, then, can we characterize the nature of the regional polities in the Hoseo area that formed alliances with Kojosŏn during this period? Clues may be found in the southward flight of King Chun following his dethronement by Wiman, and in the local groups that received the Jun faction and which subsequently became the foundational base of early Han society, known in the historical record as Chin-guk. Although the precise nature of the relationship between early Mahan and Chin-guk, as proclaimed by King Chun, is unclear, the historical reality of Chin-guk is corroborated by accounts from the late Wiman Josŏn period, which state that Chin-guk accepted the followers of Yeok Gye-gyeong (歷谿卿), a high-ranking official under King Ugeo. Furthermore, if the Hou Hanshu can be trusted in its assertion that Chinhan and the Samhan confederacies were successors to Chin-guk, then it follows that both Chin-guk and early Han society can be understood as political entities that existed in the southwestern part of the Korean Peninsula as early as the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE.
While the precise nature of the relationship between these groups and Kojosŏn remains difficult to ascertain, the fact that they successively accepted King Chun in the early 2nd century BCE and the Kojosŏn official Yeok Gye-gyeong (朝鮮相 歷谿卿) in the later part of the same century suggests a dual role – they were both political allies capable of providing refuge from the threat of Wiman Josŏn and, at the same time, rival polities competing with Wiman Josŏn for regional influence. These groups, centered in the southwestern Korean Peninsula during the formative phase of the Korean-style bronze dagger culture (4th to 3rd centuries BCE), may thus be understood as allied polities of Late Kojosŏn. As constituent members of the broader Ye-Maek confederation, they played a central role in sustaining inter-polity exchange with Kojosŏn prior to the rise of Wiman.
Among regional political entities in the southern peninsula at this time, the late-phase Songguk-ri cultural group in the Hoseo region emerges as the most probable representative. Traditionally characterized by weak sociopolitical integration across local communities, the Songguk-ri society rose to prominence in the Hoseo area by incorporating the slender bronze dagger tradition of Kojosŏn. Through this process, they secured exclusive access to prestige goods and emerged as a key ally of Late Kojosŏn in both diplomatic and economic terms. Under these circumstances, King Chun sought refuge in Hanji, a key base of the trusted allied polity Chin-guk, during the early 2nd century BCE, with the intention of restoring his political prospects. Within this environment, supported by early migrants associated with the Korean-style bronze dagger culture, with whom he shared strong kinship and cultural ties, he was able to proclaim himself the “King of Han.”
However, the early Mahan society that had begun to coalesce around King Chun did not endure for long and eventually collapsed. Following this, the peninsula-centered geopolitical worldview first articulated by the King of Han was reconfigured under the leadership of indigenous forces centered in Mokji-guk. In this process, the ideology was expanded into the later Mahan confederacy, where the legitimacy and authority of the Jin-wang were reaffirmed, now reestablished as the paramount leader of the broader Samhan confederation.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
Full text via DOI
Download Citation 
Print 
