• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.49 no.3
• /
• pp.256-269
• /
• 2016

In September 2015, the United Nations (UN) has adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as a goal of the international community to push forward from the year 2016 to 2030. Accordingly, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) has established a new chapter on sustainable development and intangible heritage the through revision of the Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Although Sustainable development is a fundamental principle of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, it is believed that the Convention has not provided guidelines of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage for sustainable development. The Operational Directives provide States Parties with guidelines on the integration of sustainable development and safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Intangible Cultural Property Institution of South Korea was designed to preserve the traditional culture in the economic development process of the industrialization since the 1960s. The institution played a role of cultural support on the development of the modern concepts. Now South Korea should implement intangible cultural heritage policy combined with sustainable development while succeeding the efforts from the former development. This study examines the meaning of sustainable development and how it should be implemented in the intangible cultural heritage policy in South Korea. And this study suggests that the South Korea's intangible cultural heritage policy should foster sustainable development particularly along with social development and human development.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.51 no.4
• /
• pp.208-223
• /
• 2018

This paper focuses on strategies and issues involving a joint inscription of an Intangible Cultural Heritage element to UNESCO through multinational cooperation and conclusive characteristics and the significance of the multinational filing. The case of "Falconry", which was jointly filed by 18 State Parties including ROK and inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity of UNESCO on 2010, was analyzed as the main object of discussion The issues can be summarized as follows: First; State Parties that participated at the joint nomination process got to grasp the purpose of the multinational nomination mechanism a lot better than before through drawing up the nomination forms. Especially, we learned that the inscription of the falconry eventually has to contribute to the perception of ICH in general and applying that knowledge at the submission of the multinational file was the major aspect for the inscription on the list in 2010 and the extension of the inscription 2012. Second; the very nature of prosecution of the multinational nomination, State Parties are given opportunities to communicate and cooperate over their shared ICH element, through which a mutual understanding of other cultures and the national characteristics of other countries - which means implementing the very ideology of UNESCO- to contribute to cooperation and peace among nations through multinational nominations. Third, the falconry, according to the Operational Directives of the <>, has a chance to be deemed a Best Practice case, since it continuously extends through more and more State Parties participating to the multinational file. Extension of a Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity element can help defusing the tension caused by identifying the owner of the intangible heritage and can mean more awareness of the purpose of the convention.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.57 no.1
• /
• pp.180-195
• /
• 2024

Community beliefs of the coastal villages in Gochang are cultural activities and rituals manifesting the hopes and spiritual worlds of the locals who live off the sea and tidal mud. Along with their societal functions wishing for peace, maritime safety, and good catches, the values of the Jwajeongdam (How god came to be), Yuraedam (History of worshipping), and Yeongheomdam (Stories of miracles), as living heritage need to be reexamined according to the recent Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The community beliefs of the coastal villages in Gochang, where outstanding universal intangible and tangible values coexist, have been perpetually transmitted in interactions with tidal mud and the ecological environments of the sea. They reinforce the "Outstanding Universal Value" UNESCO mentions and sustainability that connects the past, present, and future. Furthermore, a coastal area is endowed with international accessibility over regionality. Hence the community beliefs are charged with eco-cultural values, which its preservation and promotion should also focus on to provide policies and protection activities. In short, the tidal mud and community beliefs of coastal villages in Gochang, which according to the concept of UNESCO's "mixed heritage," meet the values for natural, cultural, and intangible heritage at the same time, and so must be approached not in the scope of points or lines, but also in surfaces when arranging protection initiatives.

• 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.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.55 no.4
• /
• pp.296-312
• /
• 2022

This paper examines the concept and process of heritagization, as well as other measures for the value enhancement of food culture as heritage, through the case of the gastronomic meal of the French, which has a long history as a socially constructed heritage. Heritage refers to what a society perceives as worthy of being transmitted. Thus, a heritage is something that a society or group chooses to preserve and that represents its identity. In the 19th century, France began to designate and protect heritage through a policy of preserving historical monuments, and heritage became both a social construct and creation with the purpose of preserving and enhancing values. Interest in heritage spread around the world with globalization, and has grown even greater since the 1972 UNESCO Convention. This interest has progressively extended to nature, urban landscapes and intangible cultural heritage. In 2003, the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage was adopted, and this has strengthened the interest in intangible cultural heritage worldwide. Food-related heritage has been excluded from the list due to difficulties in establishing inscription criteria and concerns about the potential commercialization of heritage. However, in 2010, the food cultures of the Mediterranean, Mexico, and France were inscribed on UNESCO's Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, which prompted interest in food culture and efforts to inscribe the food heritage of a number of other countries, including Korea. France has a long history of interest in gastronomy as a cultural heritage and part of its national identity. Efforts to preserve and popularize gastronomy as a part of the national identity and heritage have been made at both the private level, by gourmets and associations, and at the governmental level. Through these efforts, the culture of gastronomy as a heritage has been firmly established through theoretical discussion, listing of food-related heritages, and policies. Sustainable development of the heritage is pursued through certain ongoing institutional approaches, including the City of Gastronomy network, the National Food Program, and the promotion and labeling of the Year of the French Gourmet.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.30-45
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that transmissions of an intangible cultural heritage in Korea may be cut off because it is separated from human and social environment and protected and managed under the national system. In addition, another purpose is to criticize concept and method dichotomy in the current institution from an ecological perspective and consider the problem that the intangible cultural heritages are transmitted mainly by holders having skills and accomplishments by distinguishing them from others. Furthermore, the last purpose is to suggest a direction of policy emphasizing an importance of establishment of environment which allows nurture, change and development of local people, which may ensure continuous transmission in order to solve the problem and a transmission system of the intangible cultural heritage by using a principle in which the system is operated by self-recovery and natural rule of the ecology. The findings of this study show that seven problems can be analyzed by reviewing concept establishment and protection and transmission measure of intangible cultural heritages according to the Cultural Properties Protection Law, based on the ecological perspective. The protection and transmission methods of the intangible cultural heritage through the cultural heritage ecology are suggested by applying ecological theory to it. The intangible cultural heritage ecology defined in this paper means 'a sustainable community consisting of intangible cultural heritage, subject of activity and physical environment.' Since it is operated according to the principle reflecting the rules and features of natural ecology, it can keep system through self-recovery without an external intervention, as the case of natural ecology.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.172-187
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the 'tradition' has been identified and used concretely on the protection system of cultural property. Firstly, this paper investigated the historical process and aspects that the 'cultural property' and the 'tradition' combined, each had different meaning at the beginning. And it investigated the linkage of them which effect to the protection system and to each other on the system operated. Then, it pointed out a rift within the discourse of tradition to which the system have held on, and the problems as its result. This paper applied the viewpoint of anti-essentialism that the tradition is presented with hegemonic act to raise the inevitable continuity with the past, instead of the common notion that the tradition is 'everything that is handed down from the past.' Because the cultural property is the product of the state system, to pursne the linkage of it and the tradition is identical to examine how the tradition have been officially defined in the national hegemony. Since the 1920s the tradition has defined as a fixed, essential, pure reality in the changing process of the protection system of cultural property. This essentialist viewpoint about the tradition have been continued as the institutional premise regardless of many critics, raised by studies focusing on the culture and cultural property. But we see now a rift on the discourse of tradition as the intellectual discourse has been supported to the system, that is caused by the fast-changing global economic environment and a rat race around the registration of intangible cultural heritage of UNESCO.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.274-291
• /
• 2020

This year is the 50th anniversary of the adoption by UNESCO in 1970 of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (the '1970 Convention'). Since its ratification of the 1970 Convention in 1983, the Republic of Korea has domestically implemented the Convention through its Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which was first enacted in 1962. This is a different form of implementation than is normally used for other UNESCO Conventions on cultural heritage, in that the Republic of Korea has recently adopted special acts to enforce the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. In addition, the 1970 Convention has been developed further through the introduction of new Operational Guidelines in 2015 for the concrete enforcement of the Convention, which has provided momentum for the Republic of Korea to analyze its current national legislation related to the 1970 Convention as well as consider its amendment in the future. Overall, the Cultural Heritage Protection Act of the Republic of Korea effectively reflects the duties of States Parties under the 1970 Convention. These include measures to introduce export certificates, prohibit the import of stolen cultural property, return other state parties' cultural property, and impose penalties or administrative sanctions in the event of any infringements. Indeed, the Republic of Korea's implementation of the 1970 Convention was introduced as an example of good practice at the Meeting of State Parties in 2019. However, changes in the illegal market for cultural property and development of relevant international law and measures imply that there still exists room for improvement concerning the legal implementation of the 1970 Convention at the national level. In particular, the Operational Guidelines recommend States Parties to adopt legal measures in two respects: detailed criteria for due diligence in assessing bona-fide purchasers, referring to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, and measures to address the emerging issue of illegal trade in cultural property on internet platforms. Amendment of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and other relevant laws should be considered in order to duly reflect these issues. Taking that opportunity, concrete provisions to facilitate international cooperation in respect of the implementation of the 1970 Convention could be introduced as well. Such measures could be expected to strengthen the Republic of Korea's international legal cooperation to respond to the changing environment regarding illicit trafficking of cultural property and its restitution.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.56-77
• /
• 2021

Toponyms are located not only in the site between human cognition and the physical environment but also in the name of cultural heritage. Accordingly, certain identities and ideologies for which human groups and community have sought, their holistic way of life, and all cultural symbols and cosmos, such as sense of place and genius loci, are included in their toponymic heritage. Denoting, symbolizing, integrating and representing the culture and nature belong to the human community. Based on these perceptions of the toponymic heritage, the aims of this article are to examine the values of a toponym as an Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and to suggest the application methods using the toponymic functions for governing of tangible cultural heritage. This article discusses the multivocality, diversity, and non-representational theory of landscape phenomenology intrinsic to the terms of culture and cultural landscape and then the domestic and international issues on the toponymic heritage in the first chapter on the values of toponym as a part of the ICH. In particular, it analyzes the preceding research in the field of toponymy, as well as the Resolutions of UNCSGN and UNGEGN on "Geographical names as culture, heritage and identity" including indigenous, minority and regional language names since 1992, which is related to the UNESCO's Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003. Based on this, I suggest that the traits of toponymic cultural heritage and its five standards of selection, i.e., cultural traits of toponyms, historical traits, spatial traits, socio-economic traits and linguistic traits with some examples. In the second chapter discussing on the methods using the toponymic denoting functions for creating and governing of the tangible cultural heritage, it is underlined to maintain the systematic and unified principle regarding the ways of naming in the official cultural heritage and its governing. Lastly, I introduce the possible ways of establishing a conservative area of the historical and cultural environment while using the toponymic scale and multi-toponymic territory. Considering both the spatial and participatory turns in the field of heritage studies in addition to the multiple viewpoints and sense of cultural heritage, I suggest that the conservative area for the cultural heritage and the historical and cultural environment should be set up through choosing the certain toponymic scale and multi-toponymic territory.