• 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.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.25
• /
• pp.270-289
• /
• 1992

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.263-307
• /
• 1983

• 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.30
• /
• pp.31-44
• /
• 1997

• 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.

• 공원문화
• /
• s.7
• /
• pp.46-52
• /
• 1977

• Archives of design research
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.43-54
• /
• 2004

The appreciation of cultural properties related with what the aspects of society was is mandatory to understand our culture correctly. To make over all cultural properties to our descendants without breakage or damage is our natural duty and national obligation. On the contrary, inhabitants in the preserved area should be restricted and controlled by the cultural property law. The conflict between the inhabitants in the preserved area and the government raises economical problems and damages all the time. Especially it is time to discuss to mediate between them and solve the problems. This feasible study is a proposal to settle them up through renovating abolished school in the preserve area to the museum and a case to preserve the cultual properties as well as habitant's assets in that area.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.49 no.4
• /
• pp.218-227
• /
• 2016

Protected Flora are natural heritage that involve a wide variety of valuable natural values and cultural values. Over time, "Cultural Properties Preservation Law" has been changing the definition and the criteria of Protected Flora. In addition to the academic value and the rarity of the plant, historical, ethnic and landscape values have become increasingly important. For that reason the declaration and management processes of the Protected Flora need to be improved. However, the current statute has focused on the morphological characteristics of the plants which have a limit to encompass various values of the plant. It also does not correspond to the definition of Protected Flora and its declaration criteria stated on the "Cultural Properties Preservation Law." For this reason, the main purpose of this study is to develop new types of Protected Flora so that various Protected Flora can be discovered in the future.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.74-95
• /
• 2009

Folk villages have higher historic and cultural values than other villages and contain considerably many traditional elements today. In Korea, there are seven folk villages that are under the protection of the Cultural Properties Protection Act. Unlike other kinds of tangible cultural assets individually appointed according to the act, those folk villages are protected by the act in entirety including the houses and auxiliary structures inhabited and used by the villagers. Since the act covers the entire villages, the residents are not allowed to repair or renovate their structures and accordingly suffer from huge limitations in everyday life with housing life under the biggest restrictions. Being appointed as a folk village is positive from the perspective of preserving the village. However, it is negative to the villagers because of the limitations to their housing lives. While common people lead a convenient life by the introduction of high technologies in modern society, they do not get to benefit from such technologies for the cause of preserving the traditional culture. Upon the appointment, they are subject to all sorts of building regulations and under huge direct and indirect influences of those regulations across many different aspects of life including housing life. Thus the residents of folk villages do have many complaints about the act. It is only natural that there occur conflicts between the state, which tries to preserve the traditional culture according to the act, and the residents, who pursue convenience in life. At the same time, it is natural too that the residents have the desire to pursue convenience in daily life. Thus they renovate their houses illegally. The government agencies are aware of that, however, it is not right for them to enforce the act and restrict their daily lives. Their tacit approval of such illegal renovations is the product of compromises between the residents' right to their private property and the state's policies of cultural asset protection. The residents try to renovate their houses within the limit that will not call for legal restrictions from the government agencies. The government allows for renovations as long as they are within the minimum limit. It is the result of efforts for the state and the residents to stitch up and compromise their own complaints.