The Jung-do type Culture model and its decedents view the Proto-Historic (approx. 100 BCE – 300 CE) Korean Central Region as occupied by two broad identity/ethnic groups; the ‘Han’ (韓) (part of the Mahan confederation of polities) in the western portion and the ‘Ye(maek)’ (濊貊) to the north and east. Details vary depending upon what criteria authors use to locate these two ‘peoples’ (e.g. Stone Mound Tombs as ‘Ye’, hypocaust systems as ‘Han’, pots with externally angled rims as ‘Han’), however it is commonly assumed that these groups are categories applicable to the period. This critical review highlights the logic used to build these accounts, which include a monothetic view of material culture, archaeological patterns being explained in relation to accepted histories, and an assumption that artefact forms indicate ethnic or group identity. The limitations of such reasoning are discussed, and a recommendation is made that future work would be more fruitful and reflective of past lived reality if based on material use contexts and the identification of common social institutions. In addition, an examination of recent archaeological and historical work highlights that the Jung-do type Culture model fails on its own terms, with Stone Mound Tombs, the proposed marker of ethnic division, not appearing until at least the mid-late 3rd century and the term ‘Ye’ not denoting political communities in the Central Region until a similar date. A relative similarity in material culture across the Central Region is thus highlighted, along with some form of boundary between the Han River Basin and the southwestern part of Korea. This situation has been obscured by the prevailing models. Potential implications regarding the formation of the state of Baekje and the interactions between the peninsula and Maritime Siberia (perhaps overlooked due to focus towards the Yellow Sea and Lelang commandery) are discussed.