• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.55 no.1
• /
• pp.35-50
• /
• 2022

The Korean cultural heritage protection act, enacted in 1962, is known to have been enacted in imitation of the Japanese cultural heritage protection act. The Japanese law differs from the current law dealing with intangible cultural heritage, folklore materials, and buried cultural properties. The Japanese law was enacted in consultation with the GHQ, and reflected the historical issues at the time of the enactment. Recently, in Japan, GHQ documents have been released and so research on the cultural heritage protection act is carried out. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the meaning and achievements of the Japanese cultural heritage protection act before comparing it with the Korean law. GHQ stipulated the emperor as a symbolic entity in the Japanese constitution and prescribed the country as a liberal democracy. Influenced by this, the cultural heritage protection act was enacted to identify the people's cultural heritage. Accordingly, the cultural heritage protection committee is a private and independent organization in Japan. The committee designates cultural heritage assets, and it operates as the national museum and the cultural heritage research institute. This system was a part of policy changes shifting cultural heritage management to the private sector. Since many cultural heritages are associated with the imperial family, museums were managed by the imperial family. Meanwhile, the Japanese house of councillors persuaded GHQ, which was negative about including intangible cultural heritage in the cultural heritage protection act. The purpose of this idea was to provide the system of the government support for Japanese imperial court music and dance. In addition, folk materials were included with the consent of the GHQ in that they represent the cultural heritages and the academic achievements of the people at the time in Japan. According to the Korean Law, the subject of designation of cultural heritage is the government, and the cultural heritage committee acts as an advisory body with its limited functions. In the early days, the committee confused the concept of intangible cultural heritage and folklore materials. This was because the concepts of cultural property was borrowed from Japanese law and applied to the Korean law without a full understanding. In response, the cultural heritage committee urged the ministry to investigate the current situation in Japan. The cultural heritage committee, mainly consisting of folklore scholars, was confused about the concepts of intangible cultural heritage and folklore materials, but the concept became clear when the enforcement regulations of the cultural heritage protection Act was enacted in 1964.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.127-133
• /
• 2019

This study intends to discuss the system improvement of landscape architecture field in the cultural heritage protection system, which is changing continuously. The results are as follows. First, the status of landscape architecture in cultural heritage, including natural monuments and scenic sites, must be defined. If possible, careful consideration should be given to establish the natural monuments law and scenic sites law, respectively, related to landscape architecture. Second, natural heritage must be preserved by focusing on "space" to include cultural artifacts and landscapes that may be missing through the method of "object" focused protection. Institutionally, the scope of work should be clearly shared by reviewing the redundancy and interrelationship of related laws. Third, in order to protect and manage natural heritage, a department that is wholly responsible for landscape architecture should be established independently at the Cultural Heritage Administration. Fourth, the landscape architecture field should be specified as the requirements for the commissioner of commission at the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. In addition, it is necessary to improve the system such as expending the roles of the repairing technician for landscape architecture and plants in the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.146-159
• /
• 2014

After inspecting ground surface or excavating cultural heritage site, the government can take measures for the preservation of buried cultural heritage based on the related law. It means that the provisions complement the limitation of current cultural heritage management system by extending the scope of cultural heritage to be preserved. But we neither have set any matters about implementing the measures for preservation of the buried cultural heritage, nor manage the heritage and its surroundings after implementing the measures. Due to these insufficiency of the law, there arise several problems in the field. For example, the measures for preservation are not complete, or preserved cultural heritage is damaged due to inappropriate management. We have to resolve the problems in order to accomplish the original purpose of taking measures for preservation of the heritage. First, it is necessary to make sure of the legal status of preserved buried cultural heritage, to establish the standards to decide whether to preserve it or not. We need to have regulations by law or internal rule on the daily management, who should manage it, what and how the manager should manage. It is also important for local residents to take an active part in preserving and utilizing the cultural heritage as the owner. Through building up the foundation mentioned above, the meaning and value of preserved buried cultural heritage can be expanded widely.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.50 no.2
• /
• pp.26-39
• /
• 2017

Natural monument system was originally developed as an environmental movement and introduced in Korea during Japanese Colonization. Korea, Japan and Germany are the countries that have the natural monument systems. They are controlled by the Cultural Properties Protection Law in Korea and Japan but by the law of the protection of natural environment in Germany. For that reason the progress of the law and policy directions are similar between Japan and Korea. The natural monument system of Korea has been in use since 1930s, but the values and conditions of natural monument systems have changed over time. In terms of contents, these days cultural identity involved are getting more important than the natural scenic and ecological values, or rarity of plants. Also it's a trend to expand the preserved area around cultural properties which have been preserved on individual basis before. Finally it is necessary to discover and manage the registered cultural properties as potential designated cultural properties by creating the registration standard for natural heritage.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.39-67
• /
• 2003

In this paper we examine cultural properties of the North Korea from 'the law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on Protection of Cultural Property". This law was adopted the Resolution of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly of DPR of Korea in 1994. For our study, some other laws or rules established after the end of Japanese colonial occupation (1910-1945) in North Korea were examined. The policy on protection and conservation of cultural property in North Korea seems to have taken place a relatively rapid. The purpose of this law is to carry out the policy with a view to contributing to establishment of strict system and order for protection and management of cultural property, to their preservation in original state, to their proper inheritance and development, and to enhancement of national pride and confidence among the people. This law consists of 6 chapters (52 articles): (1) Fundamentals of the law on protection of cultural property, (2) Archaeological excavation and collection of cultural relics, (3) Evaluation and registration of cultural property, (4) Preservation and management of cultural property, (5) Restoration of cultural property, and (6) Guidance and control of cultural property protection. Nevertheless, it is difficult to find the evidence of efforts to exploit the cultural properties from an academic point of view in North Korea since the late 1980s.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.56 no.2
• /
• pp.282-294
• /
• 2023

Efforts are being made internationally to pay attention to the landscape value of modern and contemporary heritage and to pass it on. However, in Korea, the registration of modern and contemporary landscape heritage as registered cultural properties is insignificant. There has also been little discussion on ways to improve the system in this regard. This study sought ways to improve the registration criteria and classification system of the registered cultural property system so that modern and contemporary landscaping heritage could be protected. Currently, the registration criteria for registered cultural properties are not stipulated for each type of heritage, but are stipulated as a single comprehensive standard. Registration criteria should be separately prepared so that the landscape value of the heritage can be reviewed. First, the registration criteria have an important value in understanding the development of landscape culture. Second, well-preserved landscaping reflects or characterizes the times. Lastly, it should be defined as related to the works of major artists or important figures or historical events. The classification system must match the studied building cultural property classification system, and the detailed types of modern and contemporary landscape heritage should be specified. The major classification follows the building cultural property classification system, but parks and green spaces, squares, and gardens, which can be called a single landscape heritage, should be added to the middle classification. Landscaping heritage, such as gardens combined with building heritage, shall be specified in the subcategory based on building use.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.40 no.2
• /
• pp.34-43
• /
• 2022

This study compared the characteristics of cultural heritage in China and Vietnam, which have developed in the relationship of mutual geopolitical and cultural influence in history, and the following conclusions were made. First, the definition of cultural heritage in China and Vietnam has similar meanings in both countries. In the case of cultural heritage classification, both countries introduced the legal concept of intangible cultural heritage through UNESCO, and have similarities in terms of intangible cultural heritage. Second, while China has separate laws for managing tangible and intangible cultural heritages, Vietnam integrally manages the two types of cultural heritages under a single law. Vietnam has a slower introduction of the concept of cultural heritage than China, but it shows high integration in terms of system. Third, cultural heritages in both China and Vietnam are graded, which is applied differently depending on the type of heritage. The designation method has a similarity in which the two countries have a vertical structure and pass through steps. By restoring the value of heritage and complementing integrity through such a step-by-step review, balanced development across the country is being sought through tourism to enjoy heritage and create economic effects. Fourth, it was confirmed that the cultural heritage management organization has a central government management agency in both countries, but in China, the authority of local governments is higher than that of Vietnam. In addition, unlike Vietnam, where tangible and intangible cultural heritage are managed by an integrated institution, China had a separate institution in charge of intangible cultural heritage. Fifth, China is establishing a conservation management policy focusing on sustainability that harmonizes the protection and utilization of heritage. Vietnam is making efforts to integrate the contents and spirit of the agreement into laws, programs, and projects related to cultural heritage, especially intangible heritage and economic and social as a whole. However, it is still dependent on the influence of international organizations. Sixth, China and Vietnam are now paying attention to intangible heritage recently introduced, breaking away from the cultural heritage protection policy centered on tangible heritage. In addition, they aim to unite the people through cultural heritage and achieve the nation's unified policy goals. The two countries need to use intangible heritage as an efficient means of preserving local communities or regions. A cultural heritage preservation network should be established for each subject that can integrate the components of intangible heritage into one unit to lay the foundation for the enjoyment of the people. This study has limitations as a research stage comparing the cultural heritage system and preservation management status in China and Vietnam, and the characteristic comparison of cultural heritage policies by type remains a future research task.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.39-49
• /
• 2021

This study was conducted to establish practical goals for the viewing environment and interpretation and delivery system of cultural heritage and to create an viewing environment according to the classification of cultural heritage types, and the conclusions reached are as follows. First, five goals were set based on the international basic principles of the cultural heritage viewing environment and interpretation and delivery system. Second, based on the set goals, cultural heritage was classified into the first type 'disappeared and hidden heritage', the second type 'stuffed memory heritage', and the third type 'living memory heritage'. Third, the directions for creating the viewing environment for each type of cultural heritage were suggested. The first type has to be able to properly convey cultural heritage to visitors through excavation and digital technology. The second type needs a plan to deliver tangible and intangible values by combining various digital technologies with actual cultural heritage. The third type should emphasize the role of local residents in effectively enjoying the tangible and intangible values ??that already exist. Fourth, it proposed comprehensive considerations in the establishment of the cultural heritage viewing environment and interpretation and delivery system. Based on dynamic and sustainable heritage management, cultural heritage viewing should be valuable, satisfying and enjoyable. In addition, local communities should be actively involved, and tourism and conservation activities should be able to benefit the community. Establishment of a viewing environment should protect and strengthen the authenticity of cultural heritage.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.49 no.1
• /
• pp.22-43
• /
• 2016

State Ownership of Excavated Cultural Heritage System was originated from the legislations concerning cultural objects during the Japanese colonial period (1910~1945) and was succeeded by the present Buried Cultural Properties Act enacted in 2011. Despite the importance of the system that completes the outcomes of excavations and determines the state-owned cultural properties, the foundation of national heritage, it has been limitedly regarded as administrative area and neglected by the academic scholars or policy researchers. Recently the traditional culture has drawn increasing domestic interest and awareness that the cultural heritage contributes to building cultural identity and vitalizing tourism has led to increasing the demand of a local government's role in management of the state-designated cultural heritage and even fighting for hegemony in securing the cultural objects between the central and local governments. Despite the continuing efforts for improving the selection process of cultural heritage and its management institution, establishment of an advanced objective system has been requested. This paper is intended to suggest the policy direction through demonstrating the problem and assignment caused in the process of implementing the Buried Cultural Properties Act and reviews the State Ownership of Excavated Cultural Heritage System from the legal point of view accordingly. First, I suggest improving the selection process of the state-owned cultural properties. Even though current law states that Administrator of Cultural Heritage Administration reviews the research reports and selects the possible candidates for the state-owned cultural properties almost all the cultural objects listed on the reports are practically selected. In this regard, two possible resolutions can be made; newly establishing a separate process for selecting the state-owned cultural properties after publishing the report or adding the selection process of the state-owned cultural properties during the heritage selection meeting. Either way should contribute to strengthening the impartiality and objectivity of the policy. My second suggestion is improving the operating system of the heritage selection meeting in which the cultural properties to be listed on the reports are determined. Given the present extensive assessment criteria, there is much room for certain experts' subjective opinions. Therefore, in order to enhance the fairness and credibility of the heritage selection meeting, specifying the assessment criteria and advance review of the expert list are necessary. Third, this paper suggests increasing the local government's role in management of the state-owned cultural heritage and diversifying the heritage management institution. Development of a local self-governing system has led to the increased demand for delegating the authority of the state-owned heritage management to the local governments. Along with this, the gradual improvements of public museum management raises the need for expanding the cultural benefits through increasing the local government's role in management of the state-owned heritage. Considering the fact that overall majority of the art collections housed at national or public museums is owned by the central government, developing a variety of heritage contents and vitalizing the heritage tourism are crucial. The true meaning and value of the state-owned cultural heritage hidden at the storage of a museum can be found when they are shared together with the public.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.2
• /
• pp.156-179
• /
• 2020

The Preservation Decree (1933) is the basic law relevant to the conservation of cultural property of colonial Chosun, and invoked clauses from the Old History Preservation Act (1897), the Historic Scenic Sites Natural Monument Preservation Act (1919), and the National Treasure Preservation Act (1929), which were all forms of Japanese Modern Cultural Heritage Law, and actually used the corresponding legal text of those laws. Thus, the fact that the Preservation Decree transplanted or imitated the Japanese Modern Cultural Heritage Law in the composition of the constitution can be proved to some extent. The main features and characteristics of the Preservation Decree are summarized below. First, in terms of preservation of cultural property, the Preservation Decree strengthened and expanded preservation beyond the existing conservation rules. In the conservation rules, the categories of cultural properties were limited to historic sites and relics, while the Preservation Decree classifies cultural properties into four categories: treasures, historic sites, scenic spots, and natural monuments. In addition, the Preservation Decree is considered to have advanced cultural property preservation law by establishing the standard for conserving cultural property, expanding the scope of cultural property, introducing explicit provisions on the restriction of ownership and the designation system for cultural property, and defining the basis for supporting the natural treasury. Second, the Preservation Decree admittedly had limitations as a colonial cultural property law. Article 1 of the Preservation Decree sets the standard of "Historic Enhancement or Example of Art" as a criteria for designating treasures. With the perspective of Japanese imperialism, this acted as a criterion for catering to cultural assets based on the governor's assimilation policy, revealing its limitations as a standard for preserving cultural assets. In addition, the Japanese imperialists asserted that the cultural property law served to reduce cultural property robbery, but the robbery and exporting of cultural assets by such means as grave robbery, trafficking, and exportation to Japan did not cease even after the Preservation Decree came into effect. This is because governors and officials who had to obey and protect the law become parties to looting and extraction of property, or the plunder and release of cultural property by the Japanese continued with their acknowledgement,. This indicates that cultural property legislation at that time did not function properly, as the governor allowed or condoned such exporting and plundering. In this way, the cultural property laws of the Japanese colonial period constituted discriminative colonial legislation which was selected and applied from the perspective of the Japanese government-general in the designation and preservation of cultural property, and the cultural property policy of Japan focused on the use of cultural assets as a means of realizing their assimilation policy. Therefore, this suggests that the cultural property legislation during the Japanese colonial period was used as a mechanism to solidify the cultural colonial rules of Chosun and to realize the assimilation policy of the Japanese government-general.