<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [KS] Koguryo inquiry</title></head><body>
<div>To Junhi Han:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Reading your last posting I would like to make two points:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>(A)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>You wrote:</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000">First of all, through the article [by Dr Petrov], one
could believe that when the koguryo cultural heritage was put on
the list of WH from Chinese side, then it could be considered as if<i>
ŒKoguryo was named a Chinese state¹.</i></font> (...)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000">Inscription of a cultural or natural property on the
List of WH provides in no case a direct link to its cultural identity
or nationality.</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>What is wrong with such statement? There was a pretty clear
labeling attempt here, and as you know a very intense discussion
followed. Wouldn't it be too blue-eyed to claim there was no such
intended labeling going on? UNESCO declaring that things should not be
this way seems wishful thinking at best. What is wrong here with Dr.
Petrov's statement?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>(B)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In your "authenticity" discussion, quoted below, you
make it sound as if the adaption of a discourse that was going on in
archaeology and art history a product of UNESCO's policy. I guess you
do this in your function as UNESCO official. To me this seems like a
reversal of reason and outcome. "Authenticity should comprise not
only the physical but also intangible value[s] of monuments" --
that's indeed a one-to-one adoption of changes in perspectives of
archaeology and art history. Every archaeologist knows that
authenticity is a very elastic term that changes by the hour. Go to
any Romanesque or Gothic European cathedral and what the average
tourist may think is an authentic building was in fact restored and
reconstructed ten times and each wall may show a different taste of a
different period and that period's taste and representation of the
past. In that sense we are never in a "historic" building
"as it once was." If one looks closer the meaning of
authenticity in Japan and its wooden building constructions and
reconstructions are not any more extreme than is the case in Europe. I
find it therefore also very questionable to point to the
"beautification" of King Tongmyong's Tomb -- is what was
done there any different from what was done at Notre Dame de Paris or
in Dresden or at Sokkuram? I do not see any qualitative or structural
difference. As for your Tan'gun Tomb example -- why is this called a
"reconstruction"? Isn't it a construction? Or is there any
archaeologic evidence that this completely new constructed pyramid is
even the geographic site for the *mythological* founder of Koguryo?
Not everything North Korea puts on the plate needs to be discussed as
if it where on the same level in a scientific discourse.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Frank</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>quote Junhi Han:</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000">Regarding the authenticity, this is a very much argued
issue, I must say. However, I also would like to mention that the
notion of authenticity has been evolved since 60s (since the
declaration of the Venice Charter) and it is now applied into much
broader context, in particular since the adoption of the Document on
Authenticity declared in Nara 1994 (so-called the Nara Document on
Authenticity). Since then, the notion on authenticity blindly applied
until recently according to the Venice Charter (1964) is no longer
valid.</font><br>
<font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000"></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000">Authenticity should comprises not only physical
authenticity but also intangible value of monuments or sites. The
intangible value can be traditional knowledge, technique or even
tradition(practice). For such reason, the beautification of the
Tongmyong Tomb (Jinpari X) provided an intensive debates and
deliberation between experts involved in the evaluation and in the WH
inscription procedure. It is true that in Korea, there is a tradition
of taking care of ancestors¹ tombs and beautification can be
perceived even as duty even for ordinary citizensŠ I do not
know what is the usual practice in South Korea or in China in care of
a dynasty¹s founder¹s tombsŠbut it was from this point of view
that the beautification of the King Tongmyong¹ tomb was argued and
finally accepted. Fortunately, the tumulus itself was not included in
the beautification rangeŠ</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000000">Certainly the<u> beautification</u> of Tongmyong¹
Tomb is at a different level than the<u> reconstruction</u> of the
Tanggun Tomb which is not included among the complex of the 63 Koguryo
tombs inscribed on the WH List. I am not arguing here that the
beautification of the Tongmyong Tomb was appropriate or not, but
simply say that this issue could be seen from different
anglesŠ.</font></blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>--------------------------------------<br>
Frank Hoffmann<br>
http://koreaweb.ws</div>
</body>
</html>