• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.4-19
• /
• 2014

In Joseon dynasty, Gongsin-Gyoseo(Royal Edicts rewarding meritorious vassals) was issued for the reward of the contribution to the specific event of the nation. The family decided as vassals succeeded this Gongsin-Gyoseo as the family treasure to later generations. When one happened to lose this caused by an unavoidable situation such as war in this process, there were a few cases of reissuing of Gongsin-gyoseo by the nation. The confirmative reissued Gongsin-gyoseo among Gongsin-gyoseo that descended down by now are three pieces which is Park dongnyang Hoseong Gongsin-Gyoseo, Gu goeng Jeongsa Gongsin-Gyoseo, and Park jung Jeongsa Gongsin-Gyoseo. This research considered the form and mounting about these three pieces. It was indicated that the reissued Gongsin-Gyoseo was produced following the same form with the original Gongsin-Gyoseo, that is pyeongchul(moving to next lines) and daedu (writing one or two letters ahead compared to the first letter) and so on. But, it was indicated that the change of the position of the vassals in the reissued time was reflected compared to position of the original Gongsin-Gyoseo. In case of Jeonsa Gongsin-Gyoseo, it was indicated that it was 'Wonjongdaewang-whi' since the original Gongsin-Gyoseo was 'Jeongwongun-bu' and the reissued time he became the father of King Injo. Also, it was confirmed that the case of deprivation because of conspiracy such as 'Kim jajeom, Kim ryeon, Sim kiwon, Sim kisung' was produced as the original document and deleted with black ink stick. It was newly confirmed while the original Gongsin-Gyoseo was produced by a designated writer from the nation, the reissuance was written by a writer from the family of the vassals. Since the mounting of Gongsin-Gyoseo could be changed according to the favor and technique of the craftsman participated in the practical production such as Baezeopjang and economical situation of the country supplying the material, the mounting of these three Gongsin-Gyoseo should be different from the original mounting, especially because of the loss of the original by the Manchu war of 1636. The comparison result of Gongsin-Gyoseo produced in the same period with the original issued one in the record of the related Uigwe (a collection of documents from the Joseon Dynasty), the reissued one seems to be larger in the form or ratio of the mounting compared to the first issued one. First of all, the width of Byunah was expanded as twice bigger, center and both side Hoejang also was bigger as over 2cm, and the below Hoejang was expanded as 10cm, and the ratio of the upper Hoejang and the below Hoejang was wider as 1.5 times and the reissuance was 1:1 ratio. The bisect of upper shaft in Park dongnyang Hoseong Gongsin-Gyoseo is assumed as the form of an equilateral triangle, not a half-moon shape of the present, and Gu goeng and Park jung Jeongsa Gongsin-Gyoseo will be the form whose bisection form is same but the size is smaller. Chuksu is confirmed that the size is not changed significantly. Osaekdahoe can be assumed that the width was smaller compared to the first issued one. The 3 pieces of the reissued versions provide the clue of the verification for the form of the mounting of Bosa Gongsin-Gyoseo in the same production period. In the situation that the mounting of the production time was not confirmed among the currently descended Bosa Gongsin-Gyoseo, they can be very important materials.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.371-405
• /
• 2004

International circulation of cultural assets involves numerous countries thereby making an approach based on international law essential to resolving this problem. Since the end of the $2^{nd}$ World War, as the value of cultural assets evolved from material value to moral and ethical values, with emphasis on establishing national identities, newly independent nations and former colonial states took issue with ownership of cultural assets which led to the need for international cooperation and statutory provisions for the return of cultural assets. UNESCO's 1954 "Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" as preparatory measures for the protection of cultural assets, the 1970 "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" to regulate transfer of cultural assets, and the 1995 "Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects" which required the return of illegally acquired cultural property are examples of international agreements established on illegal transfers of cultural assets. In addition, the UN agency UNESCO established the Division of Cultural Heritage to oversee cultural assets related matters, and the UN since its 1973 resolution 3187, has continued to demonstrate interest in protection of cultural assets. The resolution 3187 affirms the return of cultural assets to the country of origin, advises on preventing illegal transfers of works of art and cultural assets, advises cataloguing cultural assets within the respective countries and, conclusively, recommends becoming a member of UNESCO, composing a forum for international cooperation. Differences in defining cultural assets pose a limitation on international agreements. While the 1954 Convention states that cultural assets are not limited to movable property and includes immovable property, the 1970 Convention's objective of 'Prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property' effectively limits the subject to tangible movable cultural property. The 1995 Convention also has tangible movable cultural property as its subject. On this point, the two conventions demonstrate distinction from the 1954 Convention and the 1972 Convention that focuses on immovable cultural property and natural property. The disparity in defining cultural property is due to the object and purpose of the convention and does not reflect an inherent divergence. In the case of Korea, beginning with the 1866 French invasion, 36 years of Japanese colonial rule, military rule and period of economic development caused outflow of numerous cultural assets to foreign countries. Of course, it is neither possible nor necessary to have all of these cultural properties returned, but among those that have significant value in establishing cultural and historical identity or those that have been taken symbolically as a demonstration of occupational rule can cause issues in their return. In these cases, the 1954 Convention and the ratification of the first legislation must be actively considered. In the return of cultural property, if the illicit acquisition is the core issue, it is a simple matter of following the international accords, while if it rises to the level of diplomatic discussions, it will become a political issue. In that case, the country requesting the return must convince the counterpart country. Realizing a response to the earnest need for preventing illicit trading of cultural assets will require extensive national and civic societal efforts in the East Asian area to overcome its current deficiencies. The most effective way to prevent illicit trading of cultural property is rapid circulation of information between Interpol member countries, which will require development of an internet based communication system as well as more effective deployment of legislation to prevent trading of illicitly acquired cultural property, subscription to international conventions and cataloguing collections.