[KS] northeast asia project-UNESCO heritage sites

Werner Koidl weko at eunet.at
Tue Apr 6 05:14:04 EDT 2004

Dear Prof. Pai and list members,

You wrote: " ... that being on the (World Heritage) list ... is a highly competetive process requiring ... most importantly, its historical "representativity" as a national symbol." 
Where could you find this statement ?

Reading the: Criteria for inclusion of properties in the World Heritage List on the whc.unesco.org/nwhc/pages/ I just could find the OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE as most important criterion for the nomination and selection process of the WHC.

I guess, the UNESCO-WHC cannot and does not support representative national symbols, its general principle is "to provide for the protection of those cultural and natural properties to be of outstanding universal value". 

If somebody (any private person, group or government)  is convinced of e.g. Kwanggaeto's stele being of "outstanding universal value" and that this stele should be included in the World Heritage List, then he has to support the Chinese government, because:
The nomination prodecure of the World Heritage Convention starts with: "STATE PARTIES make a tentative list of cultural and natural properties ON THEIR TERRITORY that they consider of OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE".
Thus only China (in the case of e.g. Kwanggaeto's  stele) as a State Party member of the World Heritage Convention can apply for properties on Chinese territory being included on the World Heitage List and then being responsible for the preservation (not reconstruction!) of these properties according to articles of the Convention.

As you mentioned next to "Outstanding Universal Value", the "authenticity" of the property is a very important criterion, which excludes reconstructions, so the Chinese might be clever enough not to reconstruct their properties, to avoid loosing the authenticity of these properties.

By the way, there was an article in the Sept. 2000 Newsletter of the Korea Foundation (Vol. 8, No. 5), where Ariane Perrin as a member of  an ICOMOS survey team to North Korean Heritage sites (in August 2000) and author of this article predicted difficulties for North Korean properties to be included in the List because of some properties showing heavy reconstruction (e.g. Tongmyong's tomb) and thus lack of authenticity. 

Finally, I guess, the Italians did not protest, when Germany nominated the "Roman" Porta Nigra in the northwestern German town of Trier to the List or the Lebanese people and government did not protest, when the "Site of Cartagho" built by the Phoenicians in nowadays Tunisia was nominated to the World Heritage Last. Probably the Lebanese are even a little bit proud of it. 

Werner Koidl

  ----- Original Message -----  
  From: Hyung Pai 
  To: Korean Studies Discussion List 
  Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:10 PM
  Subject: [KS] northeast asia project-UNESCO heritage sites

  Dear Mr. Lee and members,
  I also want to emphasize the importance of taking into account the impact of cultural tourism and the PRC's economic motivation for pushing the registration of these Koguryo tombs on the prestigious list of World Heritage Sites. In the last report (2001) that I have from the UNESCO World Heritage Organization, there are more than 500 historical sites/natural monuments worldwide and over 150 countries who are members. S. Korea joined in 1998 and now has six monuments registered including Sokkuram, Pulguksa, Haeinsa woodblock prints, Suwon Hwasong fortress, Chongmyo, and most recently, Hwasun dolmen sites in Cholla-do. I have kept up with the various symposiums sponsored by bureaucrats, historians, and archaeologists who spent many years of intense lobbying to list these dolmen sites as a unique 'Korean" prehistoric heritage from the Bronze Age citing the usual nationalistic propaganda about their significance as the first remains as evidence of social stratification, state formation, and ancestral architectural achievements.
  So, for your forum, I recommend that you contact the Seoul Unesco Office and esp, the assistant director Ho-Kwon who will be able to direct you to the kinds of publications, activities, monitoring of sites, and administrative funding the World heritage sites commission offers. My impression reading through the minutes of international symposiums they hold every five years as well as talking to ICOM (International Council on Museums) and ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments) members in South Korea that being on the list is a highly competitive process requiring documentation to prove historical authenticity, that the materials/technology used at the sites are still original, the preservation state of the monument is worthy of salvaging and most importantly, its historical "representativity" as a national symbol. 
  These are the prime reasons why, the PRC is so intent in assert ing their authority so as to claim them as 'their national sites" since they want to have a monopoly over the tombs preservation, reconstruction (which goes on today at a breakneck speed) and future development for tourism and commercial revenue. Mark Byington has also pointed out to me the irony of this situation since South Korean tourists and no doubt Japanese tourists (Who together have the most dispensable income to throw around) will comprise the majority of potential visitors who will spend the money and effort to go to these sites situated outside the main tourists venues in Beijing and Shanghai. It is unfortunate and in my opinion a glaring omission on the part of the various organizers that most of the international symposiums and hundreds of articles in Korean/Japanese newspapers published in the last six months demonstrate again how the "ethno-centric" bias on the part of Korean academics have influenced their debates over the sites "ethnic/artistic origins" rather than the more immediate concerns over condemning the destruction of these sites in the rushed excavations and reconstruction projects without adequate research planning or published excavation reports. 
  I hope in your forum being held in Berkeley will have a more open debates on the larger global issues facing cultural sites and monuments rather than rehashing the same nationalistic tropes which leads nowhere since this debate first surfaced amongst N. Korean scholars and Chinese officials decades ago. 

  On Mar 31, 2004, at 9:38 PM, ken.kaliher at us.army.mil wrote:

       Anthony Faiola’s thorough January 22 report in the Washington Post ("Kicking Up the Dust of History") suggested one possible reason for China’s Koguryo claims which seems very far from “silly.”  Faiola wrote:

       “...More is at stake than bragging rights to the extraordinary bronze and clay Buddhas and frescoed murals of a long-dead civilization.  Koguryo encompassed a vast area from central Manchuria to south of Seoul.  Korean academics and politicians accuse China of attempting to lay claim to the kingdom out of fear that its 870-mile-long border with North Korea will rupture with a flood of refugees if the government in Pyongyang collapses. 

       “The Chinese may be laying the groundwork to dispute the current border with North Korea and, if they find it to be in their interest, claim more territory, scholars say.  They also argue that China is trying to head off any attempt by pockets of Korean speakers on the Chinese side of the border from eventually becoming part of a unified Korea.”


    Ken Kaliher


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
    Address: PSC 303, Box 40, APO AP 96204-0040
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
    Phone: -82-11-9652-3192 (011- in Korea) 
    Back-up E-mail (NO attachments): kenkaliher at hotmail.com
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
    If Martha Stewart had just lied about weapons of mass destruction, she’d be a free woman today. 
    -- Jay Leno

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Jim Palais <palais at u.washington.edu>

    Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:29 pm

    Subject: Re: [KS] northeast asia project

    > Peter Lee: 
    > It seems like the Chinese government is being overly 
    > nationalistic. I 
    > can't think of any other reason for making a silly claim for Chinese
    > jurisdiction of Koguryo.
    > Jim Palais 
    > ----- Original Message ----- 
    > From: "Sangkee Peter Lee" <sangkee at uclink.berkeley.edu>
    > To: <Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
    > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:43 PM 
    > Subject: [KS] northeast asia project
    > > To whom it may concern: 
    > > 
    > > My name is Peter Lee and I'm a 2nd year political science 
    > student at UC 
    > Berkeley. I'm part of a
    > > student organization called Committee for Korea Studies. 5-6 
    > students have 
    > been meeting about 
    > > everyday for 2 weeks to learn more about the Northeast Asia 
    > Project- the 
    > history of goguryo and 
    > > the reason why Chinese govt is pursuing this. We decided the
    > best way to 
    > > inform the students here at Berkeley is to hold a forum where 3-4 
    > professors or experts can 
    > > lecture and answer questions. Do you have any recommendations? Those 
    > living in the US will be most 
    > > ideal, but if they live in Korea it will be okay also. Thank
    > you. I'll 
    > look forward to hearing 
    > > from 
    > > you soon. 
    > > 
    > > Peter 
    > > 
    > > 

  Hyung Il Pai
  Associate Professor
  East Asian Languages and Cultural Studies,
  HSSB Building, University of California, Santa Barbara CA 93106
  Fax: 805) 893-3011, Phone: 805) 893-2245
  Email: Hyungpai at eastasian.ucsb.edu
  Dept. Web-site -http://www.eastasian.ucsb.edu/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20040406/3e4296cc/attachment.html>

More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list