I have examined author’s points on this book and raised couple of issues on some parts. As a junior scholar, it is not my position to develop critical comments on this book considering the fact that it is author’s research results over 10 years. Still 1 have learned suggestions from this book. Also brief summary of this book might give impression which can bring confusion against author’s intention. So might my lack of knowledge on Koguryeo mural painting. It can be highly evaluated that author have successfully analyzed historical records, artifacts and mural paintings in the context of ideas, religion and social structure, which are against the research methodology on comparisons and similarities between Koguryeo’s mural paintings and Weijin-Nanbeichao period. Various floor plans enhance under8tanding on them.
These features have significance to the research methodology on Kog’ryeo's mural paintings, and further understanding of cultural historical meaning of it. Various perspectives on Japanese mural paintings arc what Korean historiography academia needs to pay attention in the absence of monographs on Koguryeo’s mural paintings. Specifically, understanding on Japanese tombs can give an indicator to comprehend Koguryeo paintings. However, some points explained by author have weak arguments or are difficult to agree with. Although author’s micro-historical study is not enough to provide a paradigm shift in the understanding of that period as a whole, this comparative historical research through iconological interpretation shall contribute to dissolve controversies by buttressing the historiography on this period.
However, it surely does have limits on the understanding of Koguryeo mural painting due to the fact that this research covers Anak number 3 tomb, Deokheungri tomb. The owners of these tombs were political exiles from China, and therefore they were under Chinese influence. As author mentions, it is a distinct feature of this methodology, but it also has contradiction at the same time. Moreover, in the context of cultural history, multi-sided reviews are necessary to give Chinese and Koguryeo identical features. It is due to difference in the development process between Koguryco mural paintings and China. In order to appreciate Koguryco, whole tombs and mural paintings should be objects of an independent research. A good example of it is a change in the contents of mural paintings from figures and customs to decoration and 4 spiritual figures. In the 5th century, acceptan ce of mural painting culture in the Koguryeo Jeokseokchong can be found. A study on these changes and individual objects in the painting can enhance understanding on Koguryco's society.
It is clear that author conducted a meaningful research on the early paintings for the first level study of Koguryeo mural painting. As author is expected to expand his scope of research to later period, a research on it is required to understand Koguryeo mural paintings in the perspective of East Asia.