Paleolithic Technologies in Korea: Interview with Seonbok Yi

We conducted a detailed interview with Professor Seonbok Yi, an archaeologist renowned for his pioneering work on the Paleolithic period in Korea.

Seonbok Yi served for many years as a faculty member at Seoul National University and has become a highly respected figure in both Korean and international archaeology.

In his research, he has particularly challenged the characterization of East Asian stone tool industries as “backward” when evaluated through Eurocentric models. According to him, whether the technologies used in the Paleolithic period appear “simple” or “complex” cannot be directly equated with cultural progress. Instead, such variation can often be explained by environmental conditions, the availability of raw materials, and conscious technological choices.

In addition to his fieldwork, Prof. Yi has made significant contributions to archaeological theory; through his concept of “technological conscious choice,” he has opened new horizons for understanding the diversity of humanity’s prehistoric past. Even after his retirement, Yi continues to produce academic papers and books, remaining one of the key figures who has brought Korean Paleolithic archaeology into the global archaeological discourse.

Buket Çağlayan (BÇ):  Your research challenges the idea that more complex stone tools always indicate cultural advancement. Could you explain why the equation “complex = advanced” can be misleading, especially in the Paleolithic?

Prof. Seonbok Yi (SY): First of all, we need to be reminded that stone tools are the most simple technological product that not only humans but also other primates are known to produce. In many cases, despite the apparent ‘complexity’ of a lithic assemblage, the technological expertises involved in its production vis-à-vis ‘simpler’ ones may in fact be of little or no different. In other words, a fine-looking bifacially retouched handaxe could have been made by the same hands who also left simple choppers with only a couple of rough retouches.

At the same time, production of the stone tools is determined not only by such cultural factors as technological knowledge but also natural conditions beyond control. For example, the mere presence/absence of fine cryptocrystalline rocks at a given location plays an important, sometimes the most important, role in determinng a reduction strategy for tool-making. Without suitable raw materials, even a most skillfull tool-maker could not have produced fine stone tools. What can one make if all the stones one could find aorund him are rough basalt, for example? In such hypothetical situationk, perhaps he would rather make tools out of wooden materials than crumbling and porous rocks. 

There may be said a number of polemical arguments relating the issue, but these two considerations alone seem to demonstrate sufficiently why one should not equate the apparent complexity of the stone tools with cultural advancement especially in the palaeolithic context.

BÇ: In some of your studies, you argue that Paleolithic people in Korea deliberately chose to use simple tools, even though they had the ability to make more complex ones. What are the most striking examples of this from the Korean archaeological record?

SY: If I may, my argument can be re-phrased as that in the simplicity of the stone tools are hidden the careful and cunning decision-making in their making. The artifacts at issue are the so-called Acheulian (or Acheulian-like) bifaces first reported in 1978, which look stunningly alike many found in Europe and Africa. A detailed three-dimentaional analysis of their morphology reveals several different approaches in their production. The most striking aspect of their production is the skillful and deliberate exploitation of the original shape of the raw materials, which are made of quarzite and quartz cobbles, materials extremely hard to control. By applying only minimum number of percussion to exploit the natural shape of the mateirla, their makers were able to obtain desirable morphology quite like what you can find at Acheulian localities in the west.

BÇ: What do you think motivated people to prefer simple tools? Were environmental conditions, cultural traditions, or practical reasons more influential in these decisions?

SY: This is a hard question for any archaeologist working for any time period at any place. Archaeologists are limited in their abilities to present the picture of the past by the nature of avaliable evidence, which is more often fragmentary and distorted than not. For my case, I do not know whether palaeolithic Koreans really ‘prefered’ simple tools or they were culturally inclined to produce such tools. But at least it seems that the availability of raw material, or, rather, its absence, had provided a role in their making and use. That is, if Korea is plentiful with fine raw mateirlas for stone tools suh as flint or obsidian, perhaps there might be more complex tools in quantity. By saying so, however, I am not suggesting that environmental conditions alone had been a determining factor. I am saying merely that the available evidence seems to indicate probable causal relationship between the morphology of stone tools and the raw material.

BÇ:  Some archaeologists interpret simple stone tools as a sign of limited knowledge. However, you emphasize the idea of “technological choice.” How can we distinguish between a lack of knowledge and a conscious preference for simplicity?

SY: This is another tough question to answer. Archaeology for me may be said a sicence of inference even under the best circumstances while the assumption of ‘limited knowledge’ for making simple tools is often heard. Such statements seem to be made without careful consideration about what they would mean about culture and culture change, and reflect his/her biased conceptions about the data under consideration. At the same time, I doubt whether anyone can deteremine confidently a lack of knowledge from a conscious preference for simplicity in assessing the nature of archaeological data. For me, what is more important  is to provide logically sound inferences on their nature based on careful observation, which by itself would perhaps be regarded as a satisfactory, if insufficient, explanation about the data.

BÇ:  Much of prehistoric archaeology is still shaped by Eurocentric models. How do your findings from Korea provide an alternative perspective to these dominant narratives?

SY: In one of my undergraduate classes five decades ago, we read the Prehistoric Societies by Graham Clark and Stuart Piggot in which Korea was treated merely with a few lines. China and Japan were treated somewhat lengthier but far from adequate. Of course the world has changed over the years, and for archaeology there is no room for Eurocentrism any more. I believe that what we now know for the archaeological past of Korea, or, in that sense for any part of the world, seems to demonstrate that there is hardly a ‘universal’ course of culture change. One of the duties of modern archaeology anywhere in the world would be to document such diversity of human cultural experiences objectively and thouroughly.

BÇ: Have you faced any challenges when presenting this approach to international audiences? Was it easy for your ideas to gain acceptance in global academic circles?

SY: I think archaeologists in any country tend to be more open to new information and ideas, which I think has something to do with that archaeology is a discipline which is eager to find new evidence. It has been a pleasure to present my data and opinion to foreign colleagues and discuss their implications for human evolution. 

BÇ:  Do you think Korea and East Asia are sufficiently represented in global Paleolithic research, or do they still remain in the background compared to European examples?

SY: It is quite true that the field of palaeolithi archaeology was and is dominated by the Western researchers even today although most of them do not conduct any field research or cannot read the original publications. One may consider a number of reasons for the situation, and perhaps the most important one is the short history of the discipline in East Asia in general. For example, first literature dealing with palaeolithic evidence in Korea appeared as late as 1965. As such, still the number of trained palaeolithic researchers is far below the adequate level and supports from closely related fields are limited. Not surprisingly, the time-space systematics of the Pleistocene is plagued with a lot of vacancies throughout East Asia. Thus, poor representation of East Asia at the global level is somewhat understandable. Nevertheless, it needs to be pointed out that western literatures dealing with the regional palaeolithic may not always be accurate as many of their authors tend to lack linguistic skills to read the original publications while ignoring to communicate with the researchers of the region. The situation must be rectified.

BÇ: How can archaeologists move away from linear models of progress and instead highlight the regional diversity of prehistoric lifeways? What kind of theoretical approaches do you recommend for this?

SY: It is fair to say that the popularization of the linear models of progress or sociocultural evolution had helped in organizing the archaeological data of various regions. But, clearly, any simplistic notion of culture change cannot be held now. As I mentioned above, one way to overcome their shortcomings is by making logical inferences on the nature of the data on the basis of accurate and objective information. In doing so, modern archaeology has relied on many theories and methods to ‘explain’ the past. It is hard to tell which among these competing approaches is the best one as any of them has its own merits and limits. Therefore, before merely attempting to choose ‘the best’ ones out of many approaches, one must keep asking the question ‘how do we know what we know?’. It is because sound understanding of the archaeological past cannot be made without epistemological consideration aboout the nature of both the data and the approaches we are taking.

BÇ: Are there any current field projects or collaborations you are working on that further explore the idea of “conscious simplicity” in lithic technology?

SY: Since my formal retirement in 2022, I have not engaged in any research project officially except finishing up the on-going ones. However, I continue to correspond with colleagues domestically and internationally. Especially, I plan to keep working with colleagues of the Institute of Archaeology, Mongolia, as I believe that much can be obtained there which will help to have a better picture of the palaeolithic in East Asia.

BÇ: Many young scholars from non-Western backgrounds face difficulties in making their voices heard in the academic mainstream. What advice would you give them about developing their own perspectives?

SY: I know only too well the frustration of young scholars of non-Western background. To them, I would say – Endure and persevere, and do not be afraid of making your opinions heard. In making presentations in front of international audiences in foreign language, you may sound awkward with wrong choice of vocabularies or grammatical errors. But you will earn the attention and respect as long as you are well organized in your thoughts and can present your thoughts orderly and logically.

BÇ: How is the Paleolithic period represented in public discourse or media in Korea today? Do you see a gap between academic knowledge and public understanding?

SY: Definitely! One of the disheartening fact of life in modern times is the tyranny of media, which greatly influeces the public. Too often media-induced nationalistic arguments have hampered academic discussion and public education. In recent years, internet-based personal media tend to add fuel to the unfettered competition for fantasy of the past. Among the public, palaeolithic is a period hard to grasp, and too often public interests in the period  remain at asking whether residents of the period are the ancestor of modern Koreans, demanding to answer either yes or no. Of course, it is a not question which can be answered in that way. 

BÇ: Finally, what is one message you would like to share with archaeology students and researchers in Türkiye about East Asian prehistory—something you believe is often overlooked or worth rethinking?

SY: As much as the archaeological past of Türkiye is complex and defies any simplistic depiction, prehistory of East Asia deserves to be approached cautiously and carefully. East Asia in general is a big chunk of land with a number of climatic and geographic zones covering one extreme to another extreme. Even from the early part of the palaeolithic, the regions demonstrates different patterns of material culture which probably reflects different mode of adaptation requuired. As time went on, complexity only increased and later there were develped sub-regional patternings with many ‘centers’. Thus, anybody interested in the regional prehistory should maintain a broad view of its diverse cultures with comparative perspectives in mind

BÇ: Is there anything you would like to add?

SY: I must confess that I know virtually nothing about the prehistory of Türkiye. It is a shame that my superficial readings about Türkiye are mainly about such places as Hattusa and Kanesh! Younger generations of Korean archaeologists should no be as ignorant as I am, and wish there will be active communication and exchange between the archaeologists of Türkiye and Korea.