Archaeologizing “Korean Heritage”: Cultural Properties Management and State Tourist Development

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This paper traces the political, economic, and historical backgrounds of the establishment of national cultural institutions that have steered the direction of archaeological investigation, research, and restoration of sites in the Republic of Korea (ROK). It focuses on the activities of the of National Research Institute Cultural Heritage (NRICH , 1969–present), the centralized bureaucracy in charge of planning, budgeting, and developing conservation methods and technology to authenticate, periodize, and classify art and architecture to be registered as ancient sites, museum treasures and representative natural/folk/artistic resources. With the emphasis on salvage archaeological/anthropological fieldwork to make way for massive state-sponsored construction of dams, factories, high-rise apartments, and expressways linking the major ports and cities since the 1970s, only six regions have been designated “culture zones,” where the highest concentration of royal tombs, fortresses, palaces, shrines, and temple complexes have been systematically excavated, preserved and reconstructed as “must-see destinations” and/or proud symbols vouching for the unbroken dynastic continuity and antiquity of Korean civilization. By dissecting the research goals, preservation agendas, and public mission of the NRICH, this paper demonstrates the critical role that state-appointed archaeologists, curators, and specialist committees have played in creating and executing cultural properties’ regulations, research agendas, and educational functions of sites for visitors, targeting both foreign and domestic tourists.

Keywords

Cultural resource management National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage Tourist development Buried cultural properties National Treasures classification system Republic of Korea Cultural Heritage Administration 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abu El-Haj, N. (2001). Facts on the ground: Archaeological practice and territorial self-fashioning in Israeli society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chŏng, C. (1969). Munhwajae kwalli haengjŏng ŭi kibon panghyang: hyŏn munhwajae kwalli chŏngch’aek ŭl chungsim ŭro [The fundamental methods of cultural properties management focussing on present practices by the office of cultural properties]. Munhwajae, 4, 86–122.Google Scholar
  3. Cleere, H. F. (Ed.). (1989). Archaeological heritage management in the modern world. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  4. Falser, M. & Juneja, M. (Eds.). (2013). ‘Archaeologizing’ heritage? transcultural entanglements between local social practices and global virtual realities. Series: Transcultural Research Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe in a Global Context. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Han, P., & Kim, T. (1994). Yŏksa munhwa kwan’gwang k’osŭ ŭi kaebal bangan [Recommendations for the development of cultural/historical tourism]. Seoul: Kyot’ong Kaebal Yŏn’guwŏn.Google Scholar
  6. Han’guk Kogohakhoe [Korean Archaeological Society]. (Ed.). (1997). Maejang munhwajae palgul chŏnmun kigwan yuksŏng pang’an yŏn’gu kyŏlkwa pogosŏ [A report on the final recommendations for the development of organizations specializing in archaeological excavations]. Han’guk Kogohakhoe [Korean Archaeological Society]: Seoul.Google Scholar
  7. Hodder, I., Shanks, M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman, J., Last, J., et al. (Eds.). (1995). Interpreting archaeology: Finding meaning in the past. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Kim, H. (1995). Han’guk kwan’gwang chiri [The geography of Korean tourism]. Seoul: Hyŏngsŏl ch’ulp’ansa.Google Scholar
  9. Kohl, P. L., & Fawcett, C. (1995). Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kungnip Chungang Pangmulkwan [National Museum of Korea]. (2009). Kungnip Pangmulkwan 100 nyŏnsa 1909–2009 [100 years of Korean museums]. Seoul: Yŏngshinsa.Google Scholar
  11. Lee, K. (1997). World heritage in Korea. Seoul: Organizing Committee of the Year of Cultural Heritage 1997 and the Samsung Foundation of Culture.Google Scholar
  12. Munhwa Kongbopu. (1979). Munhwa kongbo samshimnyŏn [Thirty-year history of the ministry of culture and information]. Ministry of culture and information, Seoul: Koryŏ sŏjŏk.Google Scholar
  13. NRICH (National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage) [Kungnip munhwajae yŏn’guso]. (1992). Munhwajae yŏn’guso iship onyŏnsa [A twenty-five year history of the national research institute of cultural properties]. Seoul: Munhwajae Kwalliguk Munhwajae Yŏn’guso.Google Scholar
  14. NRICH (National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage) [Kungnip munhwajae yŏn’guso]. (1997). Maejang munhwajae palgul pansegi [Fifty years of excavating buried cultural properties]. Conference Proceedings, Seoul: Munhwajae Kwalliguk Munhwajae Yŏn’guso.Google Scholar
  15. OCP (Office of Cultural Properties Korea) [Munhwajae Kwalliguk]. (1967). Munhwajae kwalli kaesŏn ŭl wihan chosa pokosŏ [An investigative report on improving cultural heritage management]. Seoul: Munhwajae Kwalliguk.Google Scholar
  16. Pai, H. I. (1999). Nationalism and preserving Korea’s buried past: The office of cultural properties and archaeological heritage management in South Korea. Antiquity, 73(281), 619–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pai, H. I. (2000). Constructing “Korean origins”: Archaeology, historiography, and racial myth. Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pai, H. I. (2001). The creation of national treasures and monuments: The 1916 Japanese laws on the preservation of Korean remains and relics and their colonial legacies. The Journal of Korean Studies, 25(1), 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pai, H. I. (2006). Shinhwasok kot’o pokwŏnŭl wihan yujŏk t’amsaek [Reclaiming the ruins of imagined imperial terrains: Meiji archaeology and art historical surveys in the Korean peninsula (1900–1916)]. In S. Yoon & K. Park (Eds.), Ilbon ŭi palmyŏng kwa kŭndae [The discovery of “Japan” and modernity] (pp. 247–84). Seoul: Yeesan.Google Scholar
  20. Pai, H. I. (2010a) Re-surrecting the ruins of Japan’s mythical homelands: Colonial archaeological surveys in the Korean peninsula and heritage tourism. In J. Lydon & U. Rizvi (Series Eds.), World archaeological congress research handbook series. The handbook of post-colonialism and archaeology (pp. 93–112). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pai, H. I. (2010b). Travel guides to the empire: The production of tourist images in colonial Korea. In L. Kendall (Ed.), Conference volume on consuming korean tradition in early and late modernity (pp. 67–87). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pai, H. I. (2013). Heritage management in Japan and Korea: The politics of antiquity and identity. Seattle, WA and London: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  23. Reid, D. M. (2002). Whose pharaohs: Archaeology, museums and Egyptian national identity from Napoleon to World War I. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rowan, Y & Baram, U. (2004). Marketing heritage: Archaeology and the consumption of the past. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  25. Shōda, S. (2008). A brief introduction to rescue archaeology. In Early Korea 1: Reconsidering early Korean history through archaeology (pp. 201–212). Cambridge: Early Korea Institute, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  26. Silberman, N. A. (1982). Digging for god and country—exploration, archaeology, and the secret struggle for the holy land (1799–1917). New York: Alfred K. Knopf.Google Scholar
  27. Silberman, N. A. (1989). Between past and present: Archaeology, ideology, and nationalism in the modern middle-east. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.East Asian Languages and Cultural StudiesUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations