• Journal of East-Asian Urban History
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.121-138
• /
• 2021

The Dutch arrived in the islands that now compose Indonesia in the 17^th century, settling first in Banten (1600) and Ambon (1605) before establishing Batavia (1619) and taking over Malacca (1641) from the Portuguese. Referring to this network of strategic bases throughout the Nusantara region, this paper uses the element of urban cultural heritage to examine these four major trade hubs experienced very different destinies as a result of Dutch decisions. It also explores how shifts in political power after Indonesia's independence influenced Jakarta's dominance in modern-day Indonesia. The paper suggests that Dutch opportunism and strategic visions underpinned the decision to make Jakarta the center of colonial power in the 17^th century century. It also concludes that Jakarta's continued importance in political control and policies explains why it retained its position after Indonesia's independence, and these have been supported by recent policy measures. Finally, this paper concludes that, despite its Dutch origins, urban cultural heritage has been embraced by Indonesians.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.60-77
• /
• 2020

An assumption can be made that, as a start point for the recognition and utilization of cultural heritage, the "choice" of such would reflect the cultural ideology of the ruling power at that time. This has finally been proved by the case of Korea in the 20th century. First, in the late Korean Empire (1901-1910), the prevailing cultural ideology had been inherited from the Joseon Dynasty. The main objects that the Joseon Dynasty tried to protect were royal tombs and archives. During this time, an investigation by the Japanese into Korean historic sites began in earnest. Stung by this, enlightened intellectuals attempted to recognize them as constituting independent cultural heritage, but these attempts failed to be institutionalized. During the 1910-1945 Japanese occupation, the Japanese led investigations to institutionalize Korean cultural heritage, which formed the beginning of the current cultural heritage management system. At that time, the historical investigation, designation, protection, and enhancement activities led by the Japanese Government-General of Korea not only rationalized their colonial occupation of Korea but also illustrated their colonial perspective. Korean nationalists processed the campaign for the love of historical remains on an enlightening level, but they had their limits in that the campaign had been based on the outcome of research planned by the Japanese. During the 1945-2000 period following liberation from Japan, cultural heritage restoration projects took places that were based on nationalist ideology. People intended to consolidate the regime's legitimacy through these projects, and the enactment of the 'Cultural Heritage Charter' in 1997 represented an ideology in itself that stretched beyond a means of promoting nationalist ideology. During the past 20 centuries, cultural heritage content changed depending on the whims of those with political power. Such choices reflected the cultural ideology that the powers at any given time held with regard to cultural heritage. In the background of this cultural heritage choice mechanism, there have been working trade-off relationships formed between terminology and society, as well as the ideological characteristics of collective memories. The ruling party has tried to implant their ideology on their subjects, and we could consider that it wanted to achieve this by being involved in collective memories related to traditional culture, so called-choice, and utilization of cultural heritage.

• Journal of architectural history
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.7-18
• /
• 2015

Gwanghwamun was dismantled and displaced to the east side of the palace, at that time, the Chosun Government General Building was constructed in the Gyeongbokgung palace. After the Korea war, it remained as a stonework as a result of the fire. In 1968, The Gwanghwamun came back in front of the palace. Then, why it was rebuilt in the 3rd Republic period? What was the reason for selecting concrete? Since the May 16 coup, the military regime had been utilized palace and surrounding urban space to show a visible practice of modernization. Attempting the combination of modern technology in the 1960s and traditional cultural property and reconstructing a city as a pretext called Cultural Heritage conservation was a typical mechanism of the 1960s. In this study, I start by assume that reconstructing Gwanghwamun(1968) was a part of project to change the surrounding urban space of Gwanghwamun than to preserve cultural assets. Two main contributions of the study are following. First, I collect availabe data on the reconstructing surrounding urban space of the Gwanghwamun and re-organize them in chronological order to make them as fragments of a map. Second, I analysis and identify the nature and phase of the Gwanghwamun reconstruction.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.51 no.4
• /
• pp.254-275
• /
• 2018

Taiwan and Korea have common memories of colonization by Japan. Therefore, for researchers studying colonial times, the two countries are becoming good comparative studies. In this article, a comparison of cultural properties systems between Taiwan and Joseon revealed the following. First, from a legal point of view, Japan's internalism was reflected to some extent in Taiwan. Accordingly, Taiwan's "Enforcement regulations for Historical scenic spot scenic natural monument storage method(short, Enforcement regulations)" was subordinate to Japanese law, and the Joseon's "Enforcement ordinances for Treasure and Historical scenic spot scenic natural monument storage method in Joseon(short, Enforcement ordinances)" was less than the preservation order of Taiwan. But it is not possible to equate the two differences to Japan's oppressive levels. Second, while the Joseon's "Enforcement ordinances" enactment referred to relevant laws that were promulgated in Japan, it is highly likely that Taiwan's "Enforcement regulations" When establishing Joseon's "Enforcement ordinances" order, it is reasonable to assume that all laws concerning cultural properties of Japan and Taiwan were taken into consideration. Third, the difference between Taiwan and Joseon in the quantity and content designated as cultural properties was huge. The difference in the designated quantity between Taiwan and Joseon was the difference between traditional cultural resources between the two regions, which led to 14 times more cultural properties designated in Joseon than in Taiwan. And while nearly half of Taiwan's history was the vestiges of Japan's ruling power, few of the ancient sites designated by the Joseon had traces of Japanese ruling forces. This is the result of a difference in the views that the two powers had on cultural properties.