• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.56 no.4
• /
• pp.288-318
• /
• 2023

This work began with the aim of examining the history of the concept "cultural property" that is expected to disappear, and the main subject of research was the history that preceded the spread of this notion throughout society. The phrase "cultural property" first appeared in the 1920s, and was used in various fields such as literature, history, music, and philosophy in the context of cultural resources. Until immediately following liberation from the Japanese colonial era, the meaning of cultural assets was widely applied in the range of "cultural resources," and during this period, it was often used to help supplant the reality and history of Japanese occupation. Immediately after the Korean War, it was also employed for the purpose of 'restoration of cultural resources through war'. Recognition of cultural property directly influenced by Japan's Cultural Heritage Protection Act has occurred since 1950s. In the early 1960s, the enactment of various laws related to cultural properties and the establishment of the Cultural Heritage Administration caused the meaning of cultural property to be limited to 'cultural heritage'. In this way, the definition of state-led cultural property has continued to apply to this day. It has not been clearly confirmed whether the concept of cultural properties was imported from Japan through means such as the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. Cases in which several Japanese students endorsed the concept of cultural property within Korea serve to increase the likelihood that the concept was indeed imported from Japan. However, "coined language using multiple Chinese characters," "the phenomenon of cultural complex words in the 1920s,", and "cases of non-Japanese international students using the concept of cultural property" also open up the possibility of their own occurrence. Apart from the general importance of the concept of cultural property, intellectuals at the time used this concept to promote internal development and the overcoming of colonial Joseon. In this research, it was confirmed that the conceptual word cultural property was older and had a wider history than the general perception had indicated previously. The history of the conceptual term "cultural property" may appear to be more than 60 years old based on the enactment of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, but in fact it is nearly 100 years old when traced back to on 1925, as established here. In general, the creation and disappearance of terms may proceed naturally with social change, but such terms may alternatively be created or erased through national policy. Identifying the origins of a phrase that is about to disappear represents a significant task for purposes of establishing its historical meaning.

• Proceedings of the Korea Institute of Fire Science and Engineering Conference
• /
• 2008.04a
• /
• pp.242-246
• /
• 2008

The culture property which is designated with the domestic national treasure and the treasure does not manage protection or preservation as value of culture property of national form. South Gate which is a national treasure class culture property (Soong le) put on the large calamity which is lost with this fire. This thesis intends to understand the aspects of security danger from the research on actual condition of safety supervision department in cultural properties of Korea and propose security plans against disasters to cultural properties through the comparative study with Japan which is advanced nation of culture property prevention of disaster.

• 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.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.128-145
• /
• 2014

After independence, more introductory books on Korean culture were published in both Korea and Japan, along with various papers briefly presenting relevant materials. There are differences depending on the research field, however, a considerable number of articles about Buddhist paintings were published. Research on Korean sculpture was quite active among Japanese scholars. And numerous articles and publications on Korean painting were also presented in both Korea and Japan. Publications on Korean ceramics were increased as much as in other fields. From the late 1980's through late 1990's, research on Korean cultural properties continued to increase, as many young scholars began to conduct research very actively in Korea, producing many articles to introduce new materials. A small number of Japanese scholars also continued to research Korean cultural properties. The overall number of Korean researchers also increased, as existing scholars were joined by students who went to Japan to study and conduct research, thereby helping to significantly expand the area and topics of research. In this period, the exchange exhibitions between Korea and Japan were increased. Also the substantial research reports was began to be published by the national institution. From the early 2000 thrugh present, in all fields, research has progressed and improved since the late 1990's, with many individuals pursuing a microscopic approach to their artifacts and works. More graduate students have been focusing on Korean cultural properties in Japan as the subject of their master's or doctorial thesis in art history, and overall number of researchers in various areas has increased. In the field of Buddhist painting, painting, and Buddhist crafts some important books and articles have been published. However, research achievements have been somewhat uneven. In the area of ceramics, several significant examples of substantial research reports were published by the National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage. These publications are outstanding references that illustrate the future direction of research on Korean cultural properties in Japan.

• 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.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.1
• /
• pp.64-87
• /
• 2020

The cultural property management system of Korea was established based on the modern cultural assets acts and the old imperial estate management system enacted during the Japanese occupation. Academics have researched the cultural property management system oriented on the modern cultural assets acts, but few studies have been conducted into the old imperial estate management system, which is another axis of the cultural property management system. The old imperial estate was separated from the feudal capital by the Kabo Reform, but was dismantled during the colonial invasion of Japan and managed as a hereditary property of the colonial royal family during the Japanese colonial period. After establishment of the government, the Imperial Estate Act was enacted in 1954 and defined the estate as a historical cultural property managed by the Imperial Estate Administration Office. At this time, imperial estate property that was designated as permanent preservation property was officially recognized as constituting state-owned cultural assets and public goods in accordance with Article 2 of the Act's supplementary provisions during 1963, when the first amendment to the Cultural Property Protection act was implemented. In conclusion, Korea's cultural property formation and cultural property management system were integrated into one unit from two different sources: modern cultural assets acts and the old imperial estate property management system. If the change of modern cultural assets acts was the process of regulating and managing cultural property by transplanting and applying regulations from Japan to colonial Joseon, the management of the imperial estate was a process by which the Japanese colonized the Korean Empire and disposed of the imperial estate. Independence and the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea provided the opportunity to combine these two different streams into one. Finally, this integration was completed with the establishment of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act in 1962.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.78-103
• /
• 2019

The Conservation Decree of the Chosun Treasures Historic and Natural Monuments (hereinafter referred to as the Conservation Decree), which was enacted during the Japanese colonial period, was preserved in accordance with the provisions of article No. 100 of the constitutional law. However, legislative attempts were made to replace the Conservation Decree during the US military administration and early Korean Government. The first attempt was about the National Treasures Historic and Natural Monuments which were brought in by the Legislative Assembly of South Chosun (1947) during the US military administration. The second was a bill by the government for preservation of historical interests (1950), which was submitted to the National Assembly on March 15, 1950 (the so-called Preservation Act (1950)). These two bills were amended and supplemented on the basis of the existing contents of the Conservation Decree. Afterwards, from 1952 to 1960, the legislation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (1959) and the Cultural Heritage Bill (1960) were subsequently introduced and enacted. The government's attempt to enact such a cultural property bill was aimed at the legislature to replace the preservation order system that had been in effect since the Japanese colonial period. However, due to the political situation at the time, these laws did not reach final legislation. In October 1960, the government enacted the Regulations for the Preservation of Cultural Property, which was an administrative edict that was promulgated and enacted in November. This was the first official cultural property decree introduced by the Korean government. With the enactment and promulgation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in January 1962, Korea's judicial cultural property legislation was established, based on the Korean government's unremitting efforts and experience in legislation of cultural property. In that context, the Cultural Heritage Protection Act is a historical product. The Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which was enacted in 1962, is known to emulate or transplant Japan's Cultural Heritage Protection Act (1950). It was not fully recognized that it was an extension of the Korean government's legislative process of cultural property during the period of 1945-1960. Therefore, it is important to examine the legislative process of cultural property from 1945 to 1960 to understand the background of enacting the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in 1962 along with the establishment of the Korean Cultural Property Law.

• 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.33 no.3
• /
• pp.50-57
• /
• 2015

A traditional garden in Korea has diverse cultural, historical values, such as the then phases of the times, life phase, culture and art, etc. because it was developed on the basis of the harmony between nature and artificial structures. However, in reality, it's urgent to do efficient, continuous maintenance of traditional gardens which are being damaged and lost due to the problems like an owner's aging, inheritance, and lack of management, etc., especially in case of private property which was designated as a cultural property among such traditional gardens under the Cultural Properties Protection Law. Accordingly, this study conducted this research in a bid to use these research results as basic evidentiary materials for suggesting directivity in introduction of park planning of traditional gardens in folk houses in the near future by implementing the case investigation of transformation into public parks from traditional private gardens in Japan, which is putting the newly introduced park planning to efficient use, together with its systematic management, and the survey on domestic traditional gardens in folk houses status, as well as the hearing-based survey on a traditional gardens in folk houses owner's level of willingness to accept the introduction of parking planning. As a result, this study could confirm that in case of traditional gardens in Japan, they are mobilizing the revenue from admission fees for traditional gardens maintenance by incorporating the main entity of possession, and Japan is promoting transformation of traditional gardens into parks on the basis of use and preservation through the connection with local governments and research institutes. In addition, as a result of surveying domestic traditional gardens in folk houses, it was found that most of the garden owners had hardships in its management, and they were positive about systematic maintenance of gardens through park planning.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.44 no.4
• /
• pp.18-41
• /
• 2011

The Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Korea has begun since1962 when the Cultural Properties Protection Act was established. Korean ICH Safeguarding system is initially derived from Cultural Properties Protection Act in Japan. Japan has started Important ICH Designation System in 1954 to concede the skills and artistic talents holders, thus it could implement the multilateral system management for adopting different ICH protection systems such as Important Intangible Folklore Properties, Selection and Preservation Techniques, and Documenting Records. However, Korea has solely adopted Important ICH Designation System since Cultural Properties Protection Act was introduced. Korean ICH Safeguarding System represented by the Certification System of ICH Skill Holders is to ensure skills and artistic holders who perform the elements of Intangible Cultural Heritage, and manage the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in order to let the skills and artistic holders instruct inheritors. As a result, it could build up the internal foundation for the diffusion of inheritors and established the related organizations. However, the inheritor-centered protection system has caused many problems as it is being lasted for more than fifty years. Fragmented designation measures, the cultural power of skill holders, and the research and evaluation methods have pointed out the difficulties of safeguarding and preservation measures of ICH. Moreover,the legitimacy of safeguarding system related in the authenticity of transmission in ICH has emerged to review the safeguarding system of ICH with diverse viewpoints. Therefore, this paper will review the implementation process and achievement of ICH safeguarding system to examine the problem and causes of the safeguarding system. The conference records of Cultural Property Association and articles of cultural properties policies directors, Cultural Property Association members, and professional experts are being used for the initial materials of this paper, and it is examined for the contents of designation system of Important Cultural Heritage, rather than overall cases. Thus such problems the limitation of expansion in ICH lists as inheritor-centered designation system, hierarchical and exclusive transmission system, inappropriate concept of archetype as the principle of ICH transmission are derived from the root of Important ICH designation system. Thus this paper demonstrates that this system must be revised for the expansion of ICH safeguarding system in Korea and points out multilateral protection system should be established as well as Certification System of Important ICH skill holders.