University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The grafting of a canon: the politics of Korea's national treasures and the formation of an art history

(USC Thesis Other)

The grafting of a canon: the politics of Korea's national treasures and the formation of an art history

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE GRAFTING OF A CANON:
THE POLITICS OF KOREA’S NATIONAL TREASURES
AND THE FORMATION OF AN ART HISTORY

by

Virginia Han Moon

_______________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(ART HISTORY)

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Virginia Han Moon

ii

To my mother and late father
iii

Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not have been completed without the assistance of key
people and institutions over many years. I am deeply grateful to all those who have
helped me in this process, and I only regret that I cannot list every individual’s name.
I would like to express my appreciation to my thesis committee members,
Carolyn Malone, Karen Lang, and Kyung Moon Hwang, who all provided much-needed
guidance at critical points in my writing and completion. I am grateful for their responses
to my work. My special thanks goes to my advisor, Insoo Cho, who steadfastly
continued his support of my graduate career and believed in my topic from the very
beginning.
Numerous institutions and organizations provided generous funding beginning
with the University of Southern California, which covered tuition and stipend for
graduate study, the Dean’s Merit Award (USC), the Alma May Cook Fellowship (USC),
Nikkaido Fellowship (USC), Jewel Gala Award, U.S. Department of Education Foreign
Languages and Area Studies Fellowship (FLAS), the Social Science Research Council
Dissertation Workshop, and the Korea Foundation Graduate Studies Fellowships. The
Association for Japan-US Community Exchange (ACE) and J. William Fulbright-Hays
Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship provided financial support to conduct
dissertation research in Japan and Korea, respectively. I also wish to extend my thanks to
those institutions which supported my work as a master’s student at Harvard for which
iv

the dissertation was a continuation – Thomas L. and Frances Blakemore Foundation
Language Fellowship, J. William Fulbright Junior Researcher Fellowship (IIE), and the
Harvard University Korea Institute Summer Travel Grant. I also wish to particularly
thank Professor Burglind Jungmann for her support and advice in the summer of 2007
and over the years, as well as Professor John Duncan, and Professor Nancy Abelmann for
their well-needed advice during the SSRC Dissertation Workshop.
In the U.S., special thanks to the librarians at the Hoover Institute, Eiichi Ito of
the Japanese Division and Sonya Lee of the Korean Division at the Library of Congress,
in particular, for their patience, interest, and attention to detail, Joy Kim and Sunyoon Lee
of the University of Southern California East Asian Heritage Library – their commitment
to Korean studies is an inspiration, and Choong-nam Yoon of the Harvard-Yenching
Library.
In South Korea, I wish to thank Sook Hyun Lee and Dae Kyung Kang of the
National Central Library of Korea who were most generous and helpful in their
assistance, the assistant to the former director Hong-jun Yu of the Cultural Properties
Administration, former director Kim Hongnam of the National Museum of Korea for her
dedicated efforts and Fine Arts Curator Youngna Kim and Chief Registrar Naeok Lee,
Ryu Unchu of the Rare Documents Division of the Seoul National University Library,
Cultural Properties member Hong Ro Yun, Setak O of the Chungw ŏn Cultural Properties
Institute, Y ŏngho Chung of Dankook University and Director of S ŏkjus ŏn Museum,
Yongchŏl Kim of Sungshin Womens’ University and Y ŏngjin Kim of Zinizin.
v

Closer to home, I express my heartfelt thanks to friends and family who have
been a source of personal encouragement over the last several years: Suhy ŏn Mok,
S ŏkw ŏn Cho, Kathleen Chapman, Dave Mozina, Marcelino de Santos, Michelle Woo,
and in particular, Younjung Oh, Miyoung Park, Marc Konchar, Big Auntie and uncle –
thank you for your support and all your help. To Diana, who read my drafts with
perspicuity and admirable patience, I am infinitely grateful for your time and suggestions,
which helped to shape this project in crucial ways. To my brother and his family, thank
you for listening, taking care of my computer needs, and always being real and
supportive.
To my mother and late father, who supported me unquestioningly and unceasingly
throughout my education and in a myriad of ways that I continue to realize every day, I
lovingly dedicate this dissertation to the both of you.
vi
Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

Table of Contents vi

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

Abstract xxiii

Introduction
Chapter Introduction 1
Colonial Excavations 5
Korea’s National Treasures 11
The Emergence of Korean Art and Art History 17
Korea’s Art Historical Canon 20
Previous Scholarship 22
Chapter Outline 25

Chapter 1: The State
Chapter Introduction 28
The Excavation Surveys – Pursuit of Knowledge or Exploitation? 29
The Origin of Korea’s Cultural Property Laws – Japan 33
The Colonial Legalization of Cultural Properties Ownership 39
The 1916 Law 41
The 1933 Law 47
Post-Liberation – 1945 and Korea’s National Treasures 50
The 1962 Law 55
Chapter Conclusion 62

Chapter 2: Collecting and Art Markets
Chapter Introduction 64
Collecting and Art Markets during the Chos ŏn Period 65
Collecting and Art Markets during the Colonial Period:
The Commodification and Value of Artifacts/Art 70
The Collectors: Saviors, Promotors, or Businessmen? 75
vii
Chapter Conclusion 81

Chapter 3: Museums
Chapter Introduction - Storage – The Earliest Korean Museums? 85
Early Korean World’s Fair Participation and the Imperial Museum 86
The Government-General Korean Products Exhibition of 1915 and the
Establishment of the Government-General Museum 94
The Museum Era 96
The National Museum – Post-1945: U.S. Military Involvement 103
Korean War (1950-1953) and After 107
Chapter Conclusion 112

Chapter 4: The Leap into Art History
Chapter Introduction 115
Early Publications 116
The Significance of the Masterpieces Exhibition 124
Chapter Conclusion 126

Conclusion: A Korean Art Canon?
Chapter Introduction 128
Managing Public Perceptions: The Colonial Case 128
Managing Public Perceptions: The Post-Liberation Case 130
Rejecting a Nationalized Art Canon 133

Bibliography 140

Appendix A: Figures 1-116. National Treasures of 1962 175

Appendix B: “Koseki kyû ibutsu hozon kisoku [E: Regulations on the
Preservation of Ancient Sites and Relics],”
Government-General of Korea (Ch ōsen S ōtokufu) Order
No. 52. Enacted July 1916. (English translation by author) 291

Appendix C: “Chōsen h ōmotsu koseki meish ō tenzen kinenbutsu h ōzon zei
[E: Law for the Preservation of Treasures, Historic Remains,
Scenic Sites, and Natural Monuments].” Enacted December
1933. (English translation by author) 293

Appendix D: “The Act for Cultural Property Preservation,” Act. No. 961.
January 10, 1962. (English translation provided by UNESCO) 298

viii
List of Tables

Table 1. 1916 Designated Objects and Province Excavated 44

Table 2. 1937 Designated Objects 49

Table 3. 1956 Designated Objects and Province Excavated 54

Table 4. 1962 Designated Objects and Corresponding Provinces
(116 items total) 58

Table 5. Overlapping Treasures between the 1916 list and the 1962 list 60

Table 6. Visitor Attendance at the Government-General
(Chōsen S ōtokufu) Museum (1926-1941) 101

Table 7. Photographs in Sekino’s Ch ōsen bijutsushi [Korean Art History] 120

Table 8. Photographs in Kim’s Han’guk Misulsa [Korean Art History] 122
ix
List of Figures

Figure 1
NT 1
1
Namdaemun (Sungnyemun) Gate
Chos ŏn period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
2
175

Figure 2
NT 2 Ten-Storied Stone Pagoda on Won’gak Temple Site
Chos ŏn period, 15
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list 176

Figure 3
NT 3 Monument Commemorating The Border Inspection on Pukhansan
Mountain by King Chinh ŭng
Silla period, 6
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list 177

Figure 4
NT 4 Stupa on Kodal Temple site
Kory ŏ period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 178

Figure 5
NT 5 Twin-Lion Stone Lantern at P ŏpchusa Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 179

1
Figures 1-116 represent the first 116 National Treasures of Korea designated December 20, 1962.
문화재관리국 [Bureau of Cultural Properties], 指定文化財一覽表 [A List of Designated Cultural
Properties] (서울 [Seoul]: 문화재관리국 [Bureau of Cultural Properties], 1969), 3-201.

2
Although prior colonial designations of Korea’s National Treasures are recorded as earliest as 1934, after
the passage of the 1933 Ch ōsen h ōmotsu koseki meish ō tenzen kinenbutsu hozon zei [E: Law for the
Preservation of Treasures, Historic Remains, Scenic Sites, and Natural Monuments], nine of the 116
Korean National Treasures appear as early as the 1916 Koseki kyû ibuttsu hozon kisoku [E: Regulations on
the Preservation of Ancient Sites and Relics].
x
Figure 6
NT 6 Seven-Storied Stone Pagoda in T’appy ŏngri
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 180

Figure 7
NT 7 Stele of Pongs ŏnhonggy ŏng Temple
Kory ŏ period, 11
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list 181

Figure 8
NT 8 Stele Accompanying Pagoda of Buddhist Priest Nang-hye
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 182

Figure 9
NT 9 Five-Storied Stone Pagoda on Ch ŏngnim Temple site
Paekche period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 183

Figure 10
NT 10 Three-Storied Stone Pagoda at Shilsang Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 184

Figure 11
NT 11 Stone Pagoda on Mir ŭk Temple site
Paekche period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list 185

Figure 12
NT 12 Stone Lantern in front of Kakhwangj ŏn Hall of Hwa ŏm Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 186

Figure 13
NT 13 K ŭngnakch ŏn Hall of Muwi Temple
Chos ŏn period, 15
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 187

xi
Figure 14
NT 14 Y ŏngsanj ŏn of K ŏjoam of Ŭnhae Temple
Kory ŏ period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 188

Figure 15
NT 15 K ŭngnakch ŏn Hall of Pongj ŏng Temple
Kory ŏ period, 13
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 189

Figure 16
NT 16 Seven-Storied Brick Pagoda in Shinsedong
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list 190

Figure 17
NT 17 Stone Lantern in front of Muryangsuj ŏn Hall of Pus ŏk Temple
Unified Silla period
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 191

Figure 18
NT 18 Muryangsuj ŏn Hall of Pus ŏk Temple
Kory ŏ period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 192

Figure 19
NT 19 Chosadang Hall of Pus ŏk Temple
Kory ŏ period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 193

Figure 20
NT 20 Tabot’ap Pagoda at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 194

Figure 21
NT 21 Three-Storied Stone Pagoda at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 195

xii
Figure 22
NT 22 Y ŏnhwagyo and Ch’ilpogyo Bridge at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 196

Figure 23
NT 23 Ch’ ŏngwungyo and Paegungyo Bridge at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 197

Figure 24
NT 24 S ŏkkuram Stone Grotto and Buddha Statue
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 198

Figure 25
NT 25 Monument to King T’aej ŏng Muy ŏl Before His Tomb
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 199

Figure 26
NT 26 Seated Gilt-Bronze Vairocana Buddha Statue at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 200

Figure 27
NT 27 Seated Gilt-Bronze Amitabha Buddha Statue at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 201

Figure 28
NT 28 Standing Gilt-Bronze Bhaisajyaguru Buddha Statue from
Paengyul Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 202

Figure 29
NT 29 Bell of King S ŏngdŏk
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 203

xiii
Figure 30
NT 30 Stone Pagoda at Punhwang Temple
Silla period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 204

Figure 31
NT 31 Ch’ ŏms ŏngdae Observatory
Silla period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 205

Figure 32
NT 32 Tripitaka Koreana at Haein Temple (81,158 Printing Blocks)
Kory ŏ period, 13
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 206

Figure 33
NT 33 Monument in Ch’angnyŏng Commemorating The Border
Inspection by King Chinh ŭng
Silla period, 6
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list 207

Figure 34
NT 34 East Three-Storied Stone Pagoda in Sulch ŏngri
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 208

Figure 35
NT 35 Four-Lion-Supported Three-Storied Stone Pagoda at
Hwa ŏm Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 209

Figure 36
NT 36 Bronze Bell of Sangw ŏn Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934 210

Figure 37
NT 37 Three-Storied Stone Pagoda in Kuhwangdong
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 24, 1935 211

xiv
Figure 38
NT 38 Three-Storied Stone Pagoda from Kos ŏn Temple site
Unified Silla, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 24, 1935
Appears in the 1916 colonial list 212

Figure 39
NT 39 Five-Storied Stone Pagoda in Naw ŏnri
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 24, 1935 213

Figure 40
NT 40 Thirteen-Storied Stone Pagoda on Ch ŏnghye Temple site
Unified Silla period, 8
th
– 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 24, 1935
Appears in the 1916 colonial list 214

Figure 41
NT 41 Iron Buddhist Flagpole on Yongdu Temple site
Kory ŏ period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936
Appears in the 1916 colonial list 215

Figure 42
NT 42 Wooden Buddhist Triptych at Songgwang Temple
Tang Dynasty period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936 216

Figure 43
NT 43 Edict of King Kojong of Kory ŏ
Kory ŏ period, 13
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936 217

Figure 44
NT 44 Two Three-Storied Stone Pagodas and Stone Lantern
at Porim Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936 218

Figure 45
NT 45 Seated Clay Buddha Statue at Pus ŏk Temple
Kory ŏ period, 11
th
-12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936 219
Figure 46
xv
NT 46 Wall Painting in Chosadang Hall of Pus ŏk Temple
Kory ŏ period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936 220

Figure 47
NT 47 Monument to Buddhist priest Chin-gam at Ssanggye Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936 221

Figure 48
NT 48 Nine-Storied Eight-Sided Stone Pagoda at W ŏlch ŏng Temple
Kory ŏ period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936 222

Figure 49
NT 49 Taeungjon Hall of Sud ŏk Temple
Kory ŏ period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936 223

Figure 50
NT 50 Haet’almun Gate of Togap Temple
Chos ŏn period, 15
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936 224

Figure 51
NT 51 Gate of an Official Inn in Kangnŭng
Kory ŏ period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936 225

Figure 52
NT 52 Tripitaka Koreana Repository in Haein Temple
Chos ŏn period, 15
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936 226

Figure 53
NT 53 East Stupa at Y ŏngok Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936 227

Figure 54
NT 54 North Stupa at Y ŏngok Temple
Kory ŏ period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936 228

xvi
Figure 55
NT 55 P’alsangj ŏn Hall of P ŏpchu Temple
Chos ŏn period, 17
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 3, 1938 229

Figure 56
NT 56 Kuksaj ŏn Hall of Songgwang Temple
Early Chos ŏn
Previous colonial designation: May 3, 1938 230

Figure 57
NT 57 Stone pagoda of Buddhist Priest Ch’ ŏlgam at Ssangbong Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 3, 1938 231

Figure 58
NT 58 Seated Iron Bhaisajyaguru Buddha Statue at Changgok Temple
Unified Silla period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 3, 1938 232

Figure 59
NT 59 Stele that Accompanied the Stupa of National Preceptor Chigwang
at P ŏpch’ ŏnsa Temple
Kory ŏ period, 11
th
century
Previous colonial designation: October 18, 1939 233

Figure 60
NT 60 Celadon Incense Burner with Lion-Shaped Lid
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: October 18, 1939 234

Figure 61
NT 61 Celadon Wine Pot in the Shape of a Dragon
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: October 18, 1939 235

Figure 62
NT 62 Mir ŭkch ŏn Hall of K ŭmsan Temple
Chos ŏn period, 17
th
century
Previous colonial designation: July 31, 1940 236

xvii
Figure 63
NT 63 Seated Iron Vairocana Buddha Statue at Topian Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: July 31, 1940 237

Figure 64
NT 64 Lotus-Shaped Stone Basin at P ŏpchu Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: July 31, 1940 238

Figure 65
NT 65 Celadon Incense Burner with Unicorn-Shaped Lid
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: July 31, 1940 239

Figure 66
NT 66 Celadon Kundika with Inlaid Willow, Bamboo, Lotus,
Reed and Mandarin Duck Designs
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: July 31, 1940 240

Figure 67
NT 67 Kakhwangj ŏn Hall of Hwa ŏm Temple
Chos ŏn period, 18
th
century
Previous colonial designation: June 15, 1942 241

Figure 68
NT 68 Celadon Maeby ŏng (Vase) with Inlaid Crane and Cloud Designs
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: December 30, 1943 242

Figure 69
NT 69 Certificate of Meritorious Subject for Shim Chi-Baek
for his distinguished service in helping to establish the Chos ŏn Kingdom
Chos ŏn period, 14
th
century 243

Figure 70
NT 70 Royal Proclamation of Creation and Use of
Hunminj ŏngŭm (Korean Alphabet)
Chos ŏn period, 15
th
century 244

xviii
Figure 71
NT 71 Tongguk Ch ŏngŭm (Dictionary of Proper Korean Pronunciation),
Volumes 1 and 2
Chos ŏn period, 15
th
century 245

Figure 72
NT 72 Gilt-Bronze Buddhist Triad
with Inscription of Cyclic Year of Kemi (563 A.D.)
Three Kingdoms period, 6
th
century 246

Figure 73
NT 73 Gilt-Bronze Buddhist Triad in Miniature Shrine
Kory ŏ period, 11
th
-12
th
century 247

Figure 74
NT 74 Celadon Water Dropper in the Shape of a Duck
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 248

Figure 75
NT 75 Bronze Incense Burner with Inlaid Silver Decoration at
P’yoch’ung Temple
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 249

Figure 76
NT 76 War Diary, Letter File and Draft Copies of War Report of
Admiral Yi Sun-Shin
Chos ŏn period, 10
th
century 250

Figure 77
NT 77 Five-Storied Stone Pagoda in T’apri
Silla period, 7
th
century 251

Figure 78
NT 78 Gilt-Bronze Maitreya in Meditation
Three Kingdoms period, 6
th
century 252

Figure 79
NT 79 Seated Gold Buddha Statue from Kuhwangrii, Ky ŏngju city
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century 253

Figure 80
NT 80 Standing Gold Buddha Statue from Kuhwangri, Ky ŏngju city
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century 254

xix
Figure 81
NT 81 Standing Stone Maitreya Statue from Kamsan Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century 255

Figure 82
NT 82 Standing Stone Amitabha Statue from Kamsan Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century 256

Figure 83
NT 83 Gilt-Bronze Maitreya in Meditation
Three Kingdoms period, 7
th
century 257

Figure 84
NT 84 Buddhist Triad Carved on Rock Surface
Paekche period, Late 6
th
- Early 7
th
century 258

Figure 85
NT 85 Gilt-Bronze Buddhist Triad with the Inscription of Cyclic Year
of Shinmyo (571 A.D.)
Koguryŏ period, 6
th
century 259

Figure 86
NT 86 Ten-Storied Marble Pagoda from Ky ŏngch’ ŏn Temple
Kory ŏ period, 14
th
century 260

Figure 87
NT 87 Gold Crown from K ŭmgwanch’ong (Gold Crown Tumulus)
Silla period, 5
th
– 6
th
century 261

Figure 88
NT 88 Girdle and Pendants from K ŭmgwanch’ong
(Gold Crown Tumulus)
Silla period, 5
th
– 6
th
century 262

Figure 89
NT 89 Gold Buckle
Lelang period, 1
st
– 2
nd
century 263

Figure 90
NT 90 Two Gold Earrings with Large Balls
Silla period, 6
th
century 264

xx
Figure 91
NT 91 Vessel in the Shape of a Warrior on Horseback and
Vessel in the Shape of an Attendant on Horseback
Silla period, 5
th
– 6
th
century 265

Figure 92
NT 92 Celadon Kundika with Willow and Water Fowl Designs in Silver
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 266

Figure 93
NT 93 White Porcelain Jar with Grape Design in Underglaze Iron
Chos ŏn period, 18
th
century 267

Figure 94
NT 94 Celadon Bottle in the Shape of a Melon
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 268

Figure 95
NT 95 Celadon Openwork Incense Burner
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 269

Figure 96
NT 96 Celadon Pitcher in the Shape of a Tortoise
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 270

Figure 97
NT 97 Celadon Maeby ŏng (Vase) Incised with
Lotus and Arabesque Designs
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 271

Figure 98
NT 98 Celadon Jar with Inlaid Peony Design
Kory ŏ period, 13
th
century 272

Figure 99
NT 99 Two Three-Storied Stone Pagodas from Kalhang Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century 273

Figure 100
NT 100 Seven-Storied Stone Pagoda from Namgew ŏn Temple
Kory ŏ period, 13
th
century 274

xxi
Figure 101
NT 101 Stupa of National Preceptor Chigwang from P ŏpch’on Temple
Kory ŏ period, 11
th
century 275

Figure 102
NT 102 Stupa of National Preceptor Hongb ŏp from Ch ŏngt’o Temple
Kory ŏ period, 11
th
century 276

Figure 103
NT 103 Twin-Lion Stone Lantern from Chungh ŭngsans ŏng Fortress
Unified Silla period 277

Figure 104
NT 104 Stupa thought to contain remains of Buddhist Priest Y ŏmg ŏ
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century 278

Figure 105
NT 105 Three-Storied Stone Pagoda from P ŏmhangri
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century 279

Figure 106
NT 106 Stone Amitabha Triad (Amitabha with Attendants and 28
other Buddhist Images) Inscription of Cyclic Year of Kyeyu (A.D. 673)
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century 280

Figure 107
NT 107 White Porcelain Jar with Grape Design in Underglaze Iron
Chos ŏn period, 18
th
century 281

Figure 108
NT 108 One-Thousand-Buddhas Stele with Inscription of cyclic year
of Kyeyu (A.D. 673)
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century 282

Figure 109
NT 109 Kunwi Buddhist Triad and Grotto
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century 283

Figure 110
NT 110 Portrait of Yi Chae-hy ŏn (Penname: Ikche)
Kory ŏ period, 14
th
century 284

xxii
Figure 111
NT 111 Portrait of An Hyang (Penname: Hoeh ŏn)
Kory ŏ period, 14
th
century 285

Figure 112
NT 112 Two Three-Storied Stone Pagodas on Kam ŭn Temple site
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century 286

Figure 113
NT 113 Celadon Bottle with Willow Design in Underglaze Iron
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 287

Figure 114
NT 114 Celadon Bottle in the Shape of a Muskmelon with Inlaid Peony and
Chrysanthemum Designs
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 288

Figure 115
NT 115 Celadon Bowl with Inlaid Arabesque Design
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 289

Figure 116
NT 116 Celadon Ewer in the Shape of a Gourd with Inlaid Peony Design
Kory ŏ period, 12
th
century 290

xxiii
Abstract

This dissertation examines how Korea’s National Treasures system, originally
established by the Japanese authorities during Korea’s colonial period (1910-1945),
helped to define the traditional Korean art canon of today, and why this canon continues
to be hailed as representative of the Korean nation. The manipulation of visual art is a
powerful political device, and the Korean National Treasure system is no exception.
Seeking to validate their territorial claims, the colonial Japanese excavated and claimed
ancient objects from Korean soil, kept those that served their desired interpretation of
Korean history, and preserved their selection by legislating a Treasures system whose
objects they then displayed in museums, which they built for this purpose, and at
international exhibitions. After liberation, the Korean officials not only chose to retain
the cultural properties system, but upgraded the “Treasures” to “National Treasures” for
their own political needs, using the objects to represent to the populace and the world a
visual form of national identity while concealing their colonial origins. The choices
made by Koreans at all levels – government officials, art dealers, collectors, smugglers,
museum curators, and scholars – in response to the problem of what to do with the
colonial-selected treasures determined how Korea’s art historical canon subsequently
formed. Although these objects came to be valued, first by the Japanese and then by the
Koreans, as embodying the highest aesthetic ideals found in the country, I argue that the
process of canonization of Korean art has been inherently political in its origins and has
xxiv
involved a grafting of both Japanese influences and Korean national choices. The
succession from Japanese excavations to a canonization of Korean art history is multi-
pronged and will be addressed by delving into some of the key forces at play: the state,
collecting and art markets, the museum, and early publications. Thereby, I am able to
articulate the factors and assumptions that animated the development of today’s Korean
art canon, a topic which, until this point, has not been critically addressed.

Introduction

Chapter Introduction
On February 10, 2008, Korea’s National Treasure Number 1, S ŭngnyemun [The
Gate of Exalted Ceremonies], commonly known as Namdaemun [The Great South
Gate][Figure 1], was destroyed by fire, despite the more than one hundred firefighters
who fought the blaze atop the wooden structure above the stone structure for a total of
approximately five hours.
1
Referred to as “a symbol of the Joseon [Chos ŏn] spirit since
1398,”
2
and “Korea’s premier [my italics] national treasure,”
3
the gate, which stood at
the southern point surrounding the city of Seoul, was officially constructed in 1395 and
completed in 1398 during the founding of the Chos ŏn dynasty (1392-1910) under King
Taejo’s reign (r. 1392-1398).
For days after the fire, thousands of mourners visited the gate which had been for
decades a major tourist attraction in Seoul. “We elderly people feel ashamed because we
could not protect our ancestors’ heritage,” said Lim Joos ŏk, age 57.
4
“The gate even
survived the Korean War. I cannot understand why the firefighters could not save the

1
Soe-jung Kim, “Delays and Passivity Criticized” JoongAng Daily 12 February 2008 [newspaper on-line];
available from http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article; Internet; accessed September 3, 2008.

2
Jae-Sook Jung, “The Wisdom of Cultural Preservation” JoongAng Daily 11 March 2008; available from
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article; accessed September 3, 2008.

3
Soe-jung Kim, “Delays and Passivity Criticized” JoongAng Daily 12 February 2008; available from
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article; accessed September 3, 2008.

4
Ibid., 12 February 2008. All Korean names have been provided with family name first.

1

gate,” said Ch ŏng Wanjae, age 73. Even the younger college students, many of whom
were too young to remember when the gate had been designated National Treasure
Number 1 by the Korean government in 1962, wept, saying, “Thousands of Koreans
stayed up all night watching it collapse and shed tears. . . . I was overcome with
unbearable sadness” and “Our national pride suffered greatly as the fire consumed our
national treasure, which embodies the spirit of the Korean people.”
5

What was the source of these strong emotions? What understanding did these
people possess to express and feel such loss? Was it the once daily presence of the gate
that they mourned over or was it the loss of National Treasure Number 1? Was it less
about the gate and more about national pride? Clearly, a sense of national loss was
prominent in the outpourings of the Korean citizens, both young and old alike. Yet, how
then do we understand that these very citizens, while mourning over the destruction of
the gate, loudly protested President-elect Lee Myung-bak’s temporary suggestion that the
gate be renovated using publicly-donated funds?
6
Such public solicitation was not
unheard of, having been carried out under the Park Chung Hee and Chun Doo Hwan
regimes in earlier years.
7
Rather, the responsibility for reconstructing the gate, according
to the public, should reside with the government and therefore come out of the national

5
Campus Commentary, “A National Shame” JoongAng Daily 6 March 2008 [newspaper on-line]; available
from http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article; accessed September 3, 2008.

6
Min-a Lee, “Lee Retracts Plan to Seek Public Cash to Fix Gate” JoongAng Daily 14 February 2008
[newspaper on-line]; available from http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article; Internet; accessed September 3,
2008.

7
Editorial, “Why Should We Pay?” JoongAng Daily 13 February 2008 [newspaper on-line]; available from
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article; accessed September 3, 2008.

2

budget. Even the offer to repair the gate was not met with full satisfaction. As some of
the students expressed, “Of course, S ŭngnyemun will be rebuilt, but its authenticity [my
italics] is gone.”
8

This designation of National Treasure Number 1, initially assigned by Japanese
authorities during the colonial era (1910-1945), had irked some members of the Korean
public and caused so much confusion in years past that a conference was held in
November 1996 to re-evaluate the soundness of having S ŭngnyemun as the country’s
first national treasure. At issue was the common misconception that being ranked
number one was akin to being the “best” national treasure. Rather, as those scholars who
know the history of the National Treasure system are aware, the rankings are a simple
number ordering carried over from the colonial period and not based on artistic value.
According to a poll taken in October 1996 among 144 cultural properties
specialists, 38.5% felt that the designation should be changed and 59.2% answered that it
should not be changed, saying that one cannot put a value on a National Treasure and that
S ŭngnyemun had already been presented to the world as National Treasure Number 1.
Those inclined to change the status of National Treasure Number 1 felt that S ŭngyemun
was not “worthy” to represent Korea to the world. The invention of the Korean alphabet
system, H ŭnmin ch ŏngŭm, was thought to be a better choice. Others stated that being a
former Japanese designee tainted the “national” aspect of the treasure, claiming that
National Treasure Number 1 should symbolize Korea.

8
Campus Commentary, “A National Shame” JoongAng Daily 6 March 2008 [newspaper on-line];
available from http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article; accessed September 3, 2008.

3

Koreans living right after liberation from Japanese colonial rule and Koreans of
today must grapple with the same colonial legacy; how they do so says as much about
themselves as about the treasures they have inherited. The newly-liberated Koreans did
not waste any time. As soon as things settled down after the Korean War, they organized,
chose, packaged, and shipped these Korean treasures to proudly represent their country to
the world at international art venues. Now, sixty years later, we see weeping over the
loss of the gate, the need for a conference to address dissatisfaction, and poll responses
spanning a range of opinions. Together, these indicate that Koreans of today are not only
ill-informed about the National Treasures, but have differing ideas of what should
represent Korea. That today’s citizens possess a strong sense of pride in the nation, of
nationalism, is clear, but the discomfort with the designation of the S ŭngnyemun Gate as
National Treasure Number 1 suggests a broader public sentiment that the National
Treasures are not national enough, not purely Korean, which in turn suggests that the
Japanese colonial era has not yet been accepted as part of Korea’s own history.
In this dissertation, I examine how Korea’s National Treasures system, originally
established by the Japanese authorities during Korea’s colonial period (1910-1945),
helped to define the traditional Korean art canon of today and why it continues to be
hailed as representative of the Korean nation. The manipulation of visual art is a
powerful political device, and the Korean National Treasure system is no exception.
Seeking to validate their territorial claims, the colonial Japanese excavated and claimed
ancient objects from Korean soil, kept those that served their desired interpretation of
Korean history, and preserved their selection by establishing a Treasures system whose
4

objects they then displayed in museums, which they built for this purpose, and at
international exhibitions. Following the departure of the Japanese in 1945, the Korean
officials chose to retain the National Treasures system for their own political needs, using
the objects to represent to the populace and the world a visual form of national identity
while concealing their colonial origins. These objects came to be valued, first by the
Japanese and then by the Koreans, as embodying the highest aesthetic ideals found in the
country. In my dissertation I trace this transformation from unvalued object to national
“treasure” by considering the forces of the state, art collectors and art markets, and the
museums. Thereby, I am able to articulate the factors and assumptions that animated the
development of today’s Korean art canon, a topic which, until this point, has not been
critically addressed.

Colonial Excavations
Japan’s intention to colonize Korea was expressed as early as the 1870s in the
foreign policy of the Kanghwa Treaty of 1876, although at the time Russia and China
were formidable countries that needed to be dealt with first. China’s long hold on Korea
began to decline with the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, an outcome of the Japanese
victory in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894. A decade later, the Japanese took control of
the Korean capital and the Korean government was forced to recognize Japan’s “sphere
of influence” by signing a protocol on February 23, 1904, which laid the foundation for
5

the Japanese protectorate.
9
By the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, Japan’s predominance
over Korea was not challenged. The Taft-Katsura discussions in 1905 affirmed U.S.
recognition of the Portsmouth Treaty of 1905, which ensured peace between Japan and
Russia with the understanding that Japan would “protect its interests in Korea.”
10

Subsequently, on November 17, 1905, the Eulsa Treaty, or Japan-Korea Protectorate
Treaty, was made, declaring Korea a protectorate of Japan. As Alexis Dudden writes,
“Declaring a territory a protectorate did not merely apply a euphemism to the action of
taking over; it established a legal precedent for defining certain people unfit to rule
themselves.”
11
Soon after the unrecognized protests by the Koreans at the Hague
Convention of 1907, Japan officially annexed Korea on August 29, 1910. At a time when
European-styled, “civilized” countries were recognized as sovereign states, this
acknowledgment ensured Japan’s own newly-minted international status.
By the time Japan had colonized Korea, the Japanese government had already
organized its own art objects in a national treasures system and established its own series
of protectionist laws. According to Christine Guth, the Japanese were very conscious of
using their own art objects to negotiate their relationship with the West,
12
and, as Takeshi
Fujitani affirms, Japan sought to strengthen its national symbols to be on par with those

9
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Korea: Treaties and Agreement (Washington D.C., 1921),
36-37.

10
Alexis Dudden, Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i
Press, 2005), 7.

11
Ibid., 9.

12
Christine Guth, Art, Tea, and Industry: Masuda Takashi and the Mitsui Circle (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1993), 6.

6

of the West.
13
The passing of the Japanese cultural property laws of 1871 and 1897 not
only heralded the beginning of future protectionist laws for ancient remains and relics
throughout Japan, but also introduced the concept of kokuho [National Treasures] in the
Japanese cultural property law of 1929, which was later implemented by the Koreans
after liberation. During the four decades of Japanese rule, the Japanese systematically
searched for art and archaeological objects on Korean soil. Rather than performing a
disinterested, objective, broad survey, however, the Japanese identified particular sites for
excavation and selected certain objects over others for preservation. Much has been
written claiming that the excavations were a part of Japan’s colonial agenda to prove its
worth to the larger international community. As Akira Iriye has aptly noted, the
Japanese agenda was clear: “Japan’s emerging sense of ‘mission’ to enlighten and to
reform a decaying Asia was . . . directed toward the modernization of Asia in the Western
mode . . . ."
14
And indeed, the government of Japan applied its learned modernities to its
colony, in order to “civilize” and “save” Korea. To the Japanese, it was clearly the
responsibility of the Japanese government to protect the national relics of Japan, and by
extension, colonial Korea. In fact, it is significant to note that during the colonial period,
there were no Korean “National Treasures,” per se; only Treasures. One must wonder,
why were the colonial treasures not named Japanese National Treasures? Why did the

13
Takeshi Fujitani, Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1998), 100.

14
Akira Iriye, Pacific Estrangement: Japanese and American Expansion, 1897-1911 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1972; reprinted (Chicago: Imprint Publications, 1994), 92 and Akire Iriye, “Japan’s
Policies Toward the United States,” in Japan’s Foreign Policy, 1868-1941, A Research Guide, ed. James
Morley (New York, 1974), 425.

7

Japanese feel that a cultural property system was separately needed in Korea, rather than
incorporating the excavated objects as their own, as they had the legal authority to do?
How do we explain this intense effort by the colonial government to dig up and
categorize previously ignored items? Was it purely scholarly and detached interest? And
what principles guided the sorting of objects into “Treasures” and discards? Whether
consciously or not, the Japanese were employing art as a political instrument to serve a
political agenda: to rewrite Korea’s history and to locate in Korea’s ancient artifacts
proof that a portion of Korean land had indeed once belonged to Japan.
15
They sought to
unearth historical evidence to rationalize their colonization of Korea.
As far as the Japanese were concerned, the Korean people were completely
unaware of the value of their ancient culture. And, indeed, prior to Japan's annexation of
Korea in 1910, efforts to document Korea's artifacts were not as developed, at least
compared to the art histories of China, Japan, or some places in the West, where centuries
of collecting, documenting, and theorizing left behind complex and competing influences
on the construction of contemporary canons. When the lead Japanese archaeologist
responsible for excavations in Korea, Sekino Tadashi, expressed his assessment of the
Koreans’ aptitude for appreciating their own ancient relics in 1931, he wrote:

15
Hyung Il Pai, “The Colonial Origins of Korea's Collected Past,” in Nationalism and the Construction of
Korean Identity, ed. Hyung Il Pai and Timothy R. Tangherlini, (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies,
1998), 15; Hyung Il Pai, “The Creation of National Treasures and Monuments: The 1916 Japanese Laws
on the Preservation of Korean Remains and Relics and Their Colonial Legacies,” Korean Studies 25, no. 1
(2001): 87; Hyung Il Pai, Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology,
Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories, (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2000), 36.

8

The Korean people did not know the importance of the ancient remains
and relics. When they undertook to repair an ancient structure therefore,
they were not seriously concerned with the necessity of not changing the
style, method of construction, color scheme and decoration of the building.
It is for this reason that the ancient structures were simply left to their fate
to be gradually destroyed. . . . There was not an ordinance in Korea to
protect them.
16

The blame for this ostensible lack of awareness was attributed to the Korean government,
that is, the administration of the Chos ŏn dynasty.
17
Educating Koreans in the Japanese
policies of cultural protection, then, was crucial to the protection of precious artifacts, not
only as art objects as such, but as a link to a historic past.
A comprehensive inventory, a result of extensive excavations and surveys of
previously unlooted tombs on the Korean peninsula, was made of the found goods and
systematically organized in a way that was completely new in Korea. This kind of
organization allowed the goods to be susceptible to the world art market in which these
artifacts were aestheticized and recognized as having value, initially mainly by the
Japanese. Eventually, in the public eye, both Korean and Japanese, these objects that
previously held no value or at best were curiosities before the colonial period were now
becoming prized and valued. Through museum displays and publications the objects
slowly began to be recognized as works of art, within the context of the field of
archaeology, and scholars began to make comparisons with other ancient civilizations of
Asia and the West. Catalogs of highly valued objects, museum displays, and newspaper

16
Tadashi Sekino, “Ancient Remains and Relics in Korea: Efforts toward Research and Preservation,” in
4th Bi-annual Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations (Hangzhou: The Japan Council of the
Institute of Pacific Relations, 1931), 3.

17
Ibid., 1.

9

announcements produced by the colonial government also created a frenzy among
smugglers and illegal excavators and, naturally, a booming antique art market trade.
With commodification also came a darker side – that of destruction and illegal looting.
Much scholarship has attempted to address the accusations that Japan pilfered many of
Korea’s objects during the colonial period.
18
The ongoing “unofficial” looting by the
lower classes of Japanese (and some Koreans) on the Korean peninsula, who were simply
eager to make a profit, prompted the enactment of the historic 1916 law to keep looters
from taking their finds back to Japan. Korea’s 1916 cultural property law, was, not
surprisingly, based on two of Japan’s earlier cultural property laws of 1871 and 1897.
With the enactment of this law, the colonial government established an official
classification system for unearthed objects, the first of its kind in Korea, identifying, in
particular, a total of 591
19
objects, which included 340 objects as Korea’s “Treasures”
[hŏmotsu], 101 ancient remains [koseki], 4 famous places [meishō], and 146 natural
monuments [tennen kinnenbutsu] according to the last registration list published by the
Government-General of Korea in 1943. The “Treasures” protection status under the 1933

18
Suyong Hwang, Ilchegi munhwajae pihaeng charyo [Damages to Cultural Treasures] (Seoul: Han’guk
misul sahak hy ŏphoe [Korean Art History Association]), 1973, 45, 73, 78; Kyuhong Ch ŏng, Uri
munhwajae sunansa [The History of the Difficulties of Our Country's Cultural Heritage] (Seoul: Hagy ŏn
Munhwasa Publishers, 2005), 31-43; and Kuy ŏl Yi, Han’guk munhwajae sunansa [The Tragedy of Korea’s
Cultural Treasures] (Seoul: Tolpegae Publishers, 1996), 62-201. Due to the subjective and unreliable nature
of the sources for these accusations, this aspect will not be addressed in depth here.

19
Munhwajae Kwalliguk [Bureau of Cultural Properties], Ilche chich ŏng munhwajae chae py ŏngka
ky ŏlkwa bogos ŏ [A Re-assessment of the Colonial-designated Cultural Properties] (Seoul: Munhwajae
Kwalliguk [Bureau of Cultural Properties], 1997). While the Bureau of Cultural Properties has provided
these numbers, other sources indicate slightly different numbers. For example, the Munhwa kongbobu’s
[Department of Cultural Information] Munhwa kongbo samsip ny ŏn [30 Years of Official Cultural
Information] (Seoul: Munhwa kongbobu, 1979), page 276, records 436 works and Setak O’s article, “Ilche
ŭi munhwajae ch ŏngch’aek [Japan's Policy of Cultural Treasures],” in Munhwajae [Cultural Properties] 29
(1996): 255-275, footnote 53, suggests there were a total of 377 items.

10

law from the colonial period was retained until the official passing of the Cultural
Properties Protection Law of Korea in 1962.
20

Korea’s National Treasures
After Japan’s defeat in World War I in 1945, the Korean peninsula was fraught
politically between Soviet-run forces in the north and American interests in the south.
Until the establishment of the two separate governments in the north and south, each
claiming to have legitimate control over Korea in 1948, the U.S. government intervened
and temporarily established military rule. That same year, Rhee Syngmann was elected
amidst much controversy as the first president of the Republic. The ensuing civil war,
also known as the Korean War, in 1950 between the two sides ended in an armistice in
1953 with the peninsula divided at the 38
th
parallel, still in place today.
In the chaos of Japan’s departure from Korea in 1945, the “Treasures” were
placed under the protection of the U.S. Army. But soon enough the Koreans were faced
with the dilemma of what to do with these objects that had been deemed so valuable by
the retreating enemy, yet were unearthed out of Korean soil. Should they reject them out
of hand as tainted with colonialism, or conduct a new search for objects that speak to the
Korean past? No. In 1945, the protection of cultural treasures was maintained by the
Treasures, Ancient Sites, Famous Sites and Natural Monuments Protection Committee
[K: Chos ŏn pomul koj ŏk my ŏngs ŭng ch’ ŏny ŏn kiny ŏmmul pojon ry ŏng].
21
During the

20
According to Supplementary Law, Article 2 of the 1962 Cultural Properties Law of Korea which can be
accessed at http://www.law.go.kr/LSW/LsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=5075#0000.

11

Korean War (1950-1953), the temporary cultural properties protection committee, known
as the National Treasures, Ancient Sites, Famous Sites, and Natural Monuments
committee [K: Kukpo koj ŏk my ŏngs ŭng ch ŏny ŏn kiny ŏmmul pojon wiw ŏnhoe],
22
was
appointed by the Minister of Education on December 19, 1952, in an effort to protect and
repair damaged cultural treasures from the Korean War. There are two noteworthy
aspects of this action: first, that Korean officials elected to maintain the collection of
objects at all, and second, that they kept the collection complete and intact, probably for
sake of time. Ten years later, the Law of the Protection of Cultural Properties of 1962, or
the Munhwajae pohobop [文化財保護法], then upgraded the objects officially from
“Treasures” to “National Treasures.” This last step is best understood in light of the fact
that Japan, eager to emulate Western European countries, had selected and exhibited
internationally their own collection of “National Treasures” since the passage of their
National Treasures Law in 1929.
23
That Koreans should so announce their own set of
“National Treasures,” regardless of their origins, so soon after liberation, reflects their
own need to assert themselves as a modern country on the international stage.
For, indeed, Korea’s colonization under Japan had been a time of forced transition
into the modern era. With this rapid transition, “modern” institutions and systems were
quickly subsumed in the name of progress. There is the belief in the modernity of nations

21
Ch ŏng Chaehun, “ Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe yaksa [A Concise History of the Cultural Properties
Committees]” Munhwajae [Cultural Properties] 18 (1985): 1-18.

22
Ibid., 1-18.

23
National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo: Kyoto Preservation
(http://www.tobunken.go.jp/~kokusen/ENGLISH/MEETING/EMINAR/SEMINAR/ishikawa.html).

12

and nationalisms, hence, the term ‘modernist,” as coined by Anthony Smith.
24
The
invention or development of nations is itself a modernizing process, and the National
Treasures system, initially established by a foreign colonial government to create a
Korean tradition, fits the model of an “invented tradition”
25
that has been established to
provide a continuity with the past. Indeed, after the Japanese colonial period, there was a
need to re-establish national origins in Korea. As Peter Munz, in so aptly in reflecting
Hobsbaum’s theory, writes:

Since the doctrine of nationalism required people to believe that every
nation had existed for many centuries even when its existence was not
socially and politically noticeable, the proof for its existence depended on
the continuity of its linguistic and cultural coherence. Since not even that
coherence was obvious to the naked eye, historians had . . . to demonstrate
that the ruins and documents of the past . . . were part of the cultural
heritage of each nation, monuments to the existence of cultural
continuity.
26

Yet, while the notion of an “invented tradition” may be the retrospective
judgment of the historian, it is clear that some shift of vision occurred with these objects,
calling for a recontextualization and revisualization after liberation. While Hobsbawm’s
theory of nationalism as an invented tradition defines a sort of social engineering on the
part of the government to establish a continuity with a past, Anthony Smith’s theory
resonates more closely with the theme of the dissertation here. To Smith, theories such

24
Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1986); “The Nation:
Invented, Imagined, Reconstructed?” in Millenium: Journal of International Studies 20, no. 2 (1991): 353-
368; Nationalism and Modernism (London: Routledge Press, 1998).

25
Eric Hobsbaum and Terence Ranger, The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 1.

26
David Lowenthal, The Past Is a Foreign Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 393.

13

as Hobsbawm’s, while popularly used to explain phenomena found in the development of
nationalism with the onset of the modern state, do not adequately account for pre-modern
ethnic ties that are evidenced by the importance Koreans place in blood ties. To ethno-
symbolists like Smith, collective cultural identities, which can only be properly
understood over time, constitute nationalism as a “politicized form of culture,” which
itself is public, popular, and “authentic.” Based on four sacred foundations, Smith’s
theory of nationalism includes a collective belief in a sacred territory, as defined by,
among other items, tombs and monuments of ancestors among other items, as well as a
shared faith in the glorified past of this defined territory.
27
Hence, rather than explaining
the use of cultural objects as an invented tradition, an idea that is new to the masses,
Smith refers to the process as a “reconstruction” or “rediscovery” of that particular
community’s past.
28

The Korean government’s choice to retain the colonial treasures system and at
first wholly rename the treasures as National Treasures
29
appears to demonstrate

27
Anthony Smith, Nationalism (Cambridge: polity press, 2001), 78-86, 92-95, 142-146

28
Anthony D. Smith, National Identity (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1991), 358.

29
The term National Treasures was neither modern terminology nor language that was necessarily taken
from the Japanese cultural property laws. In fact, it seems that the earliest usage can be found in one of
Korea’s oldest extant historical sources, the Samguk Sagi [History of the Three Kingdoms]. Compiled by
historian Kim Pusik (1075-1151) and others during the reign of Kory ŏ King Injong (r.1122-1146) in
1145AD, this historical record of the Three Kingdoms of Kogury ŏ, Paekche, and Silla mentions the
Chinese characters for kukpo, National Treasures, in referring to a manpasikchok, a mythical flute dating
back to the Silla period. A later document, the Samguk Yusa [Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms], also
referred to as the memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms, is better known as a collection of legends, folktales,
and historical accounts. Attributed to the Buddhist monk Ily ŏn, this historical compilation written in the
late 13
th
century, 1284 AD, also uses the Chinese characters for kukpo in the tales to refer to an incident
that occurred in 682 AD. Pusik Kim, Samguk sagi [Records of the Three Kingdoms] (Seoul: Ŭllyu
Munhwasa Publishers, 1983); http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=59885; and Ily ǒn, Samguk yusa
[Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms], (Seoul: Min ŭmsa Publishers, 2007).
14

acceptance by the Koreans of the choices made by the Japanese during the colonial
period. Like many formerly colonized countries, South Korea continued to retain the
many systems, regulations, and laws that were initially established under colonial rule by
Japan. The first volume of Munhwajae [Cultural Properties], published a few years later
in 1965 by the Bureau of Cultural Properties [Munhwajae Kwalliguk], the section directly
responsible for overseeing and designating cultural properties, utilized language replete
with Korean nationalistic sentiment to describe the responsibilities of protecting national
treasures, clearly announcing that these efforts were being carried out for the sake of the
Korean nation.
30
Over the next decade, the Bureau of Cultural Properties imprinted their
own stamp on the collection of objects designated as Korea’s National Treasures,
whittling down the first National Treasures list to a mere 116,
31
of which 68 items were
carried over from colonial times and 48 were newly selected. This “new” list of National
Treasures was made official following President Rhee Syngman’s rule, in the early years
of President Park Chung Hee’s (r. 1961-1979) regime. President Park used this law to
transform the National Treasures into national emblems through exhibitions to visually
serve his nationalistic goals, as will be evidenced in Chapter 4. Once again, then, these
excavated and rediscovered objects now known as “National Treasures” were elevated to
prominence more for political reasons than for art historical ones.

30
Munhwajae Kwalliguk [Bureau of Cultural Properties],“Opening Remarks” Munhwajae 1 (1965): 3-8.

31
Minutes of the Ministry of Education, “Designation of National Treasures,” file 6378, dated 21
December 1962, National Archives of Korea.
15

Today, all 116 objects contained in the 1962 law are still listed as National
Treasures, along with 199 additional objects that have been selected for this distinction
since. So what are these National Treasures of Korea? In South Korea, they are selected
artifacts dating from the Neolithic Age (ca. 7,000 – 10
th
c BCE) through the Chos ŏn
dynasty (1392-1910). Today, they are protected by the highest standard of state-
designated preservation within the now larger, multi-layered complex of Korea’s cultural
heritage and preservation system, whose categories also include Treasures, Historic and
Scenic Sites, Natural Monuments, Important Intangible Cultural Heritages, and Important
Folklore Materials.
32
Regulated for any movement in and out of the country, these
National Treasures have been designated to represent the rarest, most historically
valuable, or most innately traditional aesthetics of Korea. The vast range in time period
is paralleled by the eclectic nature of the objects themselves, including wooden temples
and royal architecture, stone steles, Buddhist statuary and related accoutrements, stone-
related sculptures, Confucian books, earthenware, celadon, porcelain ceramics, wall
paintings, royal and secular metalworks, calligraphy, rare books, paintings, and
miscellaneous tomb goods.
33
These treasures are scattered among Korea’s national and
provincial museums and private collections. They may also be found in university
museums in larger cities, as well as outdoor settings in the provinces. One should note
that most of these items are objects whose material make-up allowed them to stand the

32
Cultural Heritage Administration of South Korea website, www.cha.go.kr, accessed 12 May 2009.

33
Kwangpyo Lee, Kukpo iyagi [The Story of National Treasures] (Seoul: Random House Joongang, 2005),
37.

16

test of time until excavation; lost to us are the more perishable arts of painting, paper, and
the like. As of 2009, three hundred and fifteen objects have been singled out and
designated as Korea’s National Treasures.
34

The Emergence of Korean Art and Art History
The choices made by Koreans at all levels – government officials, art dealers,
collectors, smugglers, museum curators, and scholars – in response to the problem of
what to do with the colonial-selected treasures determined how Korea’s art historical
canon subsequently formed. Yet, the disjunction between acceptance by Korean
authorities of the colonialist choices and the rising need for Korean nationalism has
resulted in an ambivalence about the National Treasures that continues to the present day.
We have seen this in the passionate public response to the burning of S ŭngnyemun
coupled with an anger at its apparent Number 1 status. We will see this in the
presentation of National Treasures as Korea’s “masterpieces” coupled with a lack of
information provided to viewers about the masterpieces’ origins and in the ambivalence
that affects Korea’s traditional art canon itself.
Before the official conversion from “Treasures” to “National Treasures” in 1962,
the colonial Government-General Museum was quickly converted to the National
Museum of Korea and placed under the directorship of archaeologist Kim Chew ŏn, who
had returned to Korea from Germany where he gained training. In his position, Kim was
fully aware that there was a dearth of qualified Korean art historians and archeologists

34
Cultural Heritage Administration of South Korea website, www.cha.go.kr, accessed 12 May 2009.

17

and that, as yet, there were no resources in the country to properly provide art history
training. Out of necessity, Kim used the National Museum to serve as the initial training
ground to produce students. “The museum,” as Kentaro Tomio writes, “became in effect
the first teaching machine.”
35
This particular birthing ground served to combine the
fields of art history and archaeology and impressed upon the new Korean scholars a
version of Korean art history that was still largely colored and shaped by the colonial
museum personnel before them, especially with the retention after liberation until May
1946 of former museum director Arimitsu Ky ōichi (1907- ).
36

One of the few texts available to these earliest Korean students was written in
Japanese during the colonial period in 1932 by lead excavator and architectural historian
Sekino Tadashi, Chōsen bijutsushi [Korean Art History]. Kim W ŏnyong, a budding
student of Korean archaeology, took it upon himself to write, in 1968, the Korean-
language art history book, Han’guk Misulsa [Korean Art History]. While a deeper
analysis will be provided in Chapter 4, it can be said that Kim clearly sought to redress
the lack of Korean history in the arts in Sekino’s book. Admittedly, the chronological
ordering and subsequent linear presentation of the objects bear a large similarity to
Sekino’s 1932 book; however, Kim places greater emphasis on the stylistic influences

35
Kentaro Tomio, “Visions of Modern Space: Expositions and Museums in Meiji Japan,” in New
Directions in the Study of Meiji Japan ed., Helen Hardacre and Adam L. Kern (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 589.

36
S ŏky ŏng Ch’oe, “Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu pakmulgwan ŭi ch’ulhy ŏn kwa ‘silminjij ŏk kihoek’”
[The Colonial Opportunity in the Formation of the Government-General Museum]” Hos ŏsahak 27 (1999):
121-123; Int ŏk Kim, Sikminchi sidae k ŭndae konggan kuknip pakmulgwan [The National
Museum as a Modern Space During the Colonial Era] (Seoul: Institute of National Studies, 2007), 73; and
Kyuhong Ch ŏng, Uri munhwajae sunansa [The History of the Difficulties of Our Country's Cultural
Heritage] (Seoul: Hagy ŏn Munhwasa Publishers, 2005), 150.

18

and overarching trends. Kim’s concern for and influence on establishing a field of art
history in Korea was profound. His 1957 book was revised in 1973 and later resulted in
the 1993 Sinpan Han’guk Misulsa [New Edition of Korean Art History], which was co-
authored with his student Ahn Hwijoon [An Hwijun] and had been long used as the
standard traditional Korean art history book in colleges until only recently.
Notably, the ubiquitousness of these books, particularly, Kim’s, is significant,
given the number of future National Treasures that were incorporated by each of these
authors. Based on the first official list of 116 National Treasures produced in 1962,
37

Kim W ŏnyong’s Han’guk Misulsa incorporated 77 future National Treasures in his
introductory Korean art history book; Sekino had included 36. Both of these “first”
books, foundational classics of the discipline, essentially paved the foundation of the
traditional Korean art canon as it is learned and practiced in Korea today.
A year after Kim W ŏnyong’s art history book was first published, a major
international traveling exhibition, the Masterpieces of Korean Arts, was organized by
both the United States and the National Museum of Korea, still under the directorship of
Kim Chew ŏn. This exhibition, which sought to ensure that its “best” works were
displayed, publicized and brought to life works of art that were not as visible to the public
before. The displayed items, including National Treasures, were designated as
“masterpieces” for the sake of the exhibition, even though the term “masterpiece” speaks
directly to us of the older, pre-modern European system of production, before modernist

37
Minutes of the Ministry of Education, “Designation of National Treasures,” file 6378, dated 21
December 1962, National Archives of Korea.

19

industry and mass production. It carries the burden of excellence and also of having
successfully passed a social and cultural test. It is implied that these works came from an
atelier or studio, or the work of fine metalsmiths, jewelers, or highly skilled, and
therefore, notable, potters or glass makers. According to Susan Pearce, “‘[a]rtifacts’ are
simply that: the world of objects which do not make it into the masterpiece class.”
38
Yet,
the fact remains that these Korean “masterpieces” were once artifacts, in most cases
funerary goods, made by “unknown” working class artisans and craftsmen. By choosing
to showcase these works to the museum-going public as “masterpieces,” they became
accepted and recognized as masterpieces.
39
It was the final push needed to validate the
notion that these National Treasures indeed were to be recognized as Korea’s art, both to
its citizens and to the outside world.

Korea’s Art Historical Canon
The manipulation of visual art is indeed a powerful political device, as art has the
capacity to revise history. The original Japanese creation of a legalized system of
protected ancient artifacts was no exception, intentionally transforming particular
excavated objects to ones that epitomized the highest aesthetic and artistic ideals of the
country. In post-colonial attempts to reclaim ownership of Korea’s art history, the
categorizing, defining, and regulating of the National Treasure artifacts have become
points of contention for nationalism in particular, and modernity in general. The National

38
Susan M. Pearce, On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition (London:
Routledge Press, 1995), 291.

39
Andre Malraux, The Voices of Silence: Man and His Art (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1953), 19.
20

Treasures, in particular, have shaped the visual perception of history, defined Korean art
history, molded the way museums present the art objects, and contributed to defining
national identity itself.
Today, there is an accepted stock group of objects that appears and reappears as
representative examples of historical time periods and dynasties. The gilt-bronze Seated
Maitreya Bodhisattva, National Treasure No. 83 from the late 6
th
century [Figure 83], for
example, is revered and visually promoted as the quintessential Buddhist sculpture – a
piece whose fluidity and grace is a testament to the artisans who created it. The Koryŏ
dynasty (918-1392) celadons, such as the Gourd-shaped Celadon Bottle Inlaid with
Peony Design, National Treasure 116 from the mid-12
th
century [Figure 116], are prized
above all for their blue-green glaze and sophisticated shapes and designs, an art that is
considered by many to be the pinnacle of Korea’s ceramics. The S ŭngyemun or
Namdaemun Gate, National Treasure No. 1, mentioned earlier, was mourned by the
entire country.
Each example named here is both a recognized part of Korea’s art canon and an
object with National Treasure status. These and other like objects can commonly be
found in Korean art history textbooks and dispersed among the National Museum and its
branches as well as private collections like the Kans ŏng Museum and Samsung Museum
of Art Leeum. Images of their likenesses often grace the covers of art history textbooks,
coffee table books, and as visual emblems throughout Korea today are used ad nauseum
to decorate the multitude of tourist information guides and pamphlets. With such
constant exposure, these particular objects have gained a heightened visual significance,
21

becoming ingrained upon the viewing public as synonymous with – and only with –
“Korea.” For while the objects themselves are readily recognized by the average citizen,
the history of the objects' colonial origins has been largely suppressed. Despite their
seemingly lofty status, the National Treasures (as well as the other protected categories)
were and are to this day scattered in museums around the country. They are displayed
among other non-treasure items and are issued museum labels and site markers with the
sole and humble identification of “National Treasure No. --.” No further explanation is
provided about the nature of the National Treasures, the museums, or the governments
behind them. In other words, despite being emblems of “national” treasures throughout
Korea, there is no public information regarding how they came to attain their “national”
status. These objects, insofar as they are artifacts excavated from Korean soil, have the
potential to mirror Korea’s history to its citizens. Instead, with the rigidity and emptiness
of presentation, both in Korean museums and exhibitions abroad, these National
Treasures are distanced from their contemporary viewers by the lack of proper
historicization provided to them.

Previous Scholarship
To date, only two scholars and a journalist, including Hyung Il Pai, Lee Sunja,
and Dong-a-Ilbo journalist Lee Kwangpyo, have produced studies relating to Korea’s
National Treasures system. Pai has published extensively on the Korean heritage
management system of which the National Treasures plays a part. She focuses on the
main governing organ, the Office of Cultural Properties, as well as the early 1911 and
22

1916 laws that helped to create the system.
40
In so doing, Pai well illustrates the
importance of early Japanese archaeology to Korean history and convincingly
demonstrates how the Japanese set the parameters for Korean heritage management and
its ultimate impact on today’s tourism industry.
41
Pai, in contrast to most other Korean
scholars, does not shy away from asserting that Korean art history and archaeology are
hugely indebted to the initial organization and classification of these objects by Japanese
scholars. I agree with Pai that the Japanese influence cannot be denied, but I also focus
on how the Korean government utilized that knowledge after liberation. In so doing, I
hope to demonstrate that Korea’s relationship with its own national artifacts is a complex
and problematic negotiation between integrating its colonial past and redefining its
nationalistic present.
In her dissertation entitled, “Ilche kangch ŏmgi koj ŏk chosa ŏp yŏngu [A Study of
Koj ŏk Investigations During the Japanese Colonial Period],” Lee Sunja concentrates on
the excavations and surveys that dominated the energies of the colonial government.
42

40
Hyung Il Pai, “The Colonial Origins of Korea's Collected Past,” in Nationalism and the Construction of
Korean Identity, ed. Hyung Il Pai and Timothy R. Tangherlini (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies,
University of California, 1998), 13-32; and Hyung Il Pai, Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical
Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000).

41
Hyung Il Pai, “The Colonial Origins of Korea's Collected Past,” 26; Hyung Il Pai, “Nationalism and
Preserving Korea's Buried Past: The Office of Cultural Properties and Archaeological Heritage
Management in South Korea,” Antiquity 73, no. 281 (1999); Hyung Il Pai, Constructing “Korean” Origins:
A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories,
2000; and Hyung Il Pai, “The Creation of National Treasures and Monuments: The 1916 Japanese Laws on
the Preservation of Korean Remains and Relics and Their Colonial Legacies,” Korean Studies 25, no. 1
(2001), 72-95.

42
Sunja Lee, “Ilche kangch ŏmgi koj ŏk chosa ŏp y ŏn’gu [A Study of Koj ŏk Investigations During the
Japanese Colonial Period]” (Ph.D. diss., Sookmyung Womens’ University, 2007).

23

These objects formed the basis for the designation and registration of treasures from the
period between 1916 and 1945. The need to store and exhibit the treasures led to the
establishment of the Ch ōsen S ōtokufu Museum and the related branch museums in
Ky ŏngju and Py ŏngyang, reflecting the concerted efforts by the colonial authorities to
focus on certain geographical locations. Lee also makes a distinction between “legal”
(official) collecting and “illegal” (tomb robbing) collecting, although in both cases, found
objects were taken to Japan. Indeed, in Lee’s view, the challenge for the Japanese
colonial government was to create a system that was similar enough to be recognized as
such, but emit a standard of relative inferiority to “adequately” portray colonial power.
In this dissertation, I elaborate on Lee’s analysis but find her approach to be limited in
synthesizing data in a coherent and critical fashion. Regrettably, her work seems far
more interested in detailing the Japanese colonial government’s supposed illegal
activities than providing an unbiased analysis of the events that transpired. My work will
expand upon her focus on the colonial period and will explore additionally the post-
liberation period from 1945 up until the introduction of Korea’s 1962 Law for the
Protection of Cultural Properties. While the period of occupation surely provided
insights as to these how these designations from 1910-1945 came about, the view from
1945-1962 is a more important period since this period shows an independent Korea’s
first forays into defining its cultural treasures. It is my hope that the inclusion of the post-
liberation period data will provide a revealing comparison to uncover the decisions that
were made by the Korean government.
24

Dong-a-Ilbo (Dong-a Daily News) reporter Lee Kwangpyo has written a book on
the National Treasures, Kukpo iyagi [The Story of National Treasures], which is aimed
for popular appeal, following in the footsteps of Yu Hongjun and his widely-read series,
Na ŭi munhwa yusan dapsagi [The Writings of the Explorations of My Cultural
Treasures] in the 1990s. Although Lee has provided useful charts of National Treasures
in terms of their present location and kind, and delves into the issue of missing National
Treasures and their background stories, this work fails to engage with the scholarly issues
surrounding the political and social history of the National Treasures. Still, his is the first
book to deal solely with the topic of National Treasures thus far and should be credited as
such. In my work, I gratefully adopt his organization and breakdown of statistics
concerning the National Treasure objects themselves, but choose to expand and
contextualize this data as they pertain to art and art history, which not only Lee, but the
two other authors, have not addressed adequately.

Chapter Outline
This dissertation seeks to show how today’s canon of Korean art is a product of
the establishment and politicized development of the National Treasures system over the
last century. By focusing on the development of officially-designated cultural properties
during the colonial period and their subsequent continuation in the form of Korea’s
National Treasures system after Korea’s liberation from Japan in 1945, I argue that the
history of Korean traditional art is thus inherently political in its origins. Japanese laws
and bureaucrats essentially established what was to become the foundation of the canon
25

for traditional Korean art, then the Korean laws and committee members grafted their
own choices to the inherited model. The history of Korean traditional art is thus
inherently political in its origins. The succession from Japanese excavations to a
canonization of Korean art history is multi-pronged and will be addressed by discussing
some of the key forces at play throughout the process: the state, collecting and art
markets, the museum, and early publications.
Chapter 1, “The Power of the State,” will outline the major laws relevant to the
development of the National Treasures, from their colonial beginnings as treasures
dictated by the colonial government to their transformation into National Treasures by the
Korean government after liberation. This chapter will serve to establish the legal
standards by which cultural properties were officially designated and protected, first
according to Japanese conceptions of cultural property protection, and later in post-
liberation Korea, according to still extant colonial practices that continued to determine
Korean cultural property laws.
Chapter 2, “The Power of Collecting and Art Markets,” will consider how
gathering and collecting cultural artifacts resulted in the renewed appreciation of the
value of Korean ancient artifacts by Korean and Japanese citizens alike. Both the legal
behavior of collecting and illegal activities of black market smuggling served to elevate
previously unassigned market values to the excavated artifacts.
Chapter 3, “The Power of the Museums,” will explore and discuss the
significance of expositions and museums as venues for showcasing Korea’s treasures
both domestically, and later, after liberation, to the world. The history of Korean
26

museums, established first in the colonial period, stood squarely in the middle of attempts
by Koreans to deal with the Japanese “residue” in the presentation, display, and even, in
some cases, choice of objects.
Within these political concatenations, many of the cultural artifacts designated as
National Treasures became incorporated into Korea’s first art history books, and
therefore, into traditional Korean art history, the subject of Chapter 4, “The Leap into Art
History.”
While this line of thought may not necessarily be surprising for a colonized
country, the connection between colonialism and the canonization of traditional Korean
art has thus far been unexplored. From National Treasure to the formation of a canon, the
Korean artifacts, originally excavated by the colonial authorities, came to be regarded and
promoted as works of art, and helped to create the discipline of traditional Korean art
history. This evolution was largely overseen and commandeered by the colonial
government, and after liberation, the Korean government presented the National
Treasures to the international world as Korea’s own treasures – the highlights and peaks
of Korea’s artistic achievement. Thus, a grafted canon of art was formed with the
National Treasures playing a vital role in perpetuating it. In the following chapters, we
will delve into the forces involved in this transformation and explore the connections of
art to national identity formation, colonialism, and modernity.
27

Chapter 1: The State

Chapter Introduction
Upon their arrival, the Japanese authorities implemented a nationwide system of
excavating and categorizing Korea’s cultural treasures. Official excavations produced
objects that were rated by a value system, levels 1 through 4, with level 1 representing
objects deemed by the excavators to be of the highest quality.
1
This valuation produced
two results: on an official level, objects marked as level 1 were designated and
recognized as ibutsu (“Relics/Artifacts”), and physical sites were marked as level 2
became koseki (“Ancient Sites”). Objects in levels 3 and 4 were eventually discarded or
destroyed as not being “worthy” enough to protect. The highest ruling colonial authority,
the Government-General of Korea, or Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, considered the work so
important that two cultural property laws were legislated in 1916 and 1933 during the
colonial period to ensure the legal registration and protection of these newly found
objects.

1
S ŏky ŏng Ch'oe, “Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu pakmulgwan ŭi ch’ulhy ŏn kwa ‘silminjij ŏk kihoek’”
[The Colonial Opportunity in the Formation of the Government-General Museum].” Hos ŏsahak 27 (1999):
103; and Sunja Lee, “Ilche kangch ŏmgi koj ŏk chosa ŏp y ŏn’gu [A Study of Koj ŏk Investigations During the
Japanese Colonial Period].” (Ph.D. diss., Sookmyung Womens’ University, 2007), 27.

28

The Excavation Surveys – Pursuit of Knowledge or Exploitation?
To avoid being unprepared when foreigners asked questions about its rule in
Korea, the Japanese government formally defined its Korean policies to the world
community by printing yearly explanations in the form of Kankoku shisei nenp ō
[韓國施政年報](1905-1910),
2
which were translated into English as the Annual Report
on Reforms and Progress in Korea. The project was so successful that annual reports,
Chōsen S ōtokufu shisei nenp ō [朝鮮總督府施政年報](1912-1945),
3
were produced until
the end of the colonial period. The Report made clear to those familiar with the Hague
incident of 1907 that Koreans were “. . . unfit to rule themselves and therefore could not
participate as subjects in international terms.”
4
In other words, Korea needed to be part
of Japan. Whether there was a pre-existing belief in the oneness of Japan and Korea or a
political desire to look for evidence that would establish such a belief, the thoroughness
and organization with which the government-sponsored surveys were carried out were
both notable and intentional.
Years before official annexation, the Japanese had already begun their process of
gathering cultural artifacts on the Korean peninsula. Japanese anthropologist Yagi

2
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, Kankoku shisei nenp ō [Korea Yearly Reports] (1905-1910) (S ŏul : Kokugaku
Shiry ōin [Academic Research Institute], (reprint) 1983-1984. Vol. for 1909 bound with: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu
shisei nenp ō, Meiji 43-nen [1910]).

3
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, Ch ōsen S ōtokufu shisei nenp ō [The Yearly Records of the Government-General
of Ch ōsen] (Keij ō: Kokugaku Shiry ōin [Academic Research Institute], (reprint) 1983-1984. Originally
published annually: Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, 1912-1943. Vol. for 1910 bound with: Kankoku shisei nenp ō,
dai 3-ji (Meiji 42-nen [1909]).

4
Alexis Dudden, Japan's Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power, (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i
Press, 2005), 21.

29

S ōzabur ō (1866-1942) was sent, in 1900, by the privately-established Tokyo
Anthropological Society [T ōkyō Jinruigakkai 東京人類學會 ] (1884-present)
5
to observe
old buildings on the Korean continent. Two years later in 1902, architectural historian
and archaeologist Sekino Tadashi (1868-1935)
6
of Tokyo University, was invited by the
Korean government, at the recommendation of a Japanese advisor, to study Korean
antiquities, initially focusing on Sekino’s primary interest, architecture. This initial
survey by Yagi helped Sekino produce the Kankoku kenchiku ch ōsa h ōkoku [A Report on
Investigation of Korean Architecture (韓國建築調査報告)], a book of some 300 photos
and 252 pages in length published by Tokyo Imperial University in 1904. The reason for
the expenditure of such efforts is not revealed in the book, but it is apparent that the
venture focused on the geographic areas of Ky ŏngju, Kaes ŏng, and Ky ŏngs ŏng,
7
former
capitals of the ancient Korean kingdoms of Silla (57BCE – 935CE when also including
the United Silla period), Kory ŏ (935CE – 1392CE), and present-day Seoul, respectively.
By 1909, the Resident-General officially assigned Sekino to continue to oversee ancient
architecture starting with the Ky ŏngju tombs,
8
and by 1910, Sekino and his team had
scoured the Py ŏngyang (the former Lelang/Han commanderies region (108BCE –

5
Conference talk given by Hyung Il Pai, “Constructed Places / Contested Spaces: Critical Geographies in
Korea” May 14-16, 2004, Royce Hall 314 University of California, Los Angeles.

6
Masahiro Saotome, “Sekino Tadashi Revisited: Archaeology of Kogury ŏ under the Governor-General of
Ch ōsen,” in Association for Asian Studies Conference (2003).

7
Kyuhong Ch ŏng, Uri munhwajae sunansa [The History of the Difficulties of Our Country's Cultural
Heritage] (Seoul: Hagy ŏn Munhwasa Publishers, 2005), 54.

8
Yuch ŏn Cho, “Ilche ŭi kobun palgul mit dogul siltae.” In Ilche ŭi munhwajae ch ŏngchaek py ŏngka
semina [A Seminar on the Assessment of the Cultural Policies of the Japanese Colonial Period], by the
Munhwajae Kwalliguk (Seoul: Munhwajae Kwalliguk, 1996), 48.

30

313AD), and the former Kaya (42-562BCE) territory in the south, a region believed to
have ancient relations with China and Japan.
9
During the course of Sekino’s excavations,
objects were catalogued and shipped to Tokyo University where they were exhibited.
10

The purpose of these efforts was two-fold: for scholarship and for political
strategies in the name of colonialism – concepts that were often hard to separate. It was
in the name of scholarship that the colonial government was particularly interested in the
Lelang/Han commanderies region, to collect material evidence in support of Korea’s
previous relationship with China. As soon as Korea was annexed to Japan in 1910, a
colonial government-led koseki chosa [Historical Remains Investigation] was quickly
commissioned to oversee three five-year [1910-1915, 1916-1920 and 1921-1930]
“official” excavations of pre-historical tombs, historical sites, old architecture, gold,
metal, and stone implements, and old documents in the areas surrounding the early
Lelang/Han commanderies and the Three Kingdoms of ancient Korea – Kogury ŏ
(37BCE-668CE), Paekche (18BCE-660CE), and Silla.
11
These locations were not
chosen randomly; each area had been known to have historic ties to ancient Japan or had
exhibited strong ties to China, which Japan, by way of example and power, hoped to
replace. The heavy interest in the former Lelang region was based on an agenda to

9
Ibid., 44-45, 51.

10
Dongs ŏn U, “Sekkino tadasi ŭi han’guk ko k ŏnch’uk chosa wa pojon e daehan y ŏn’gu [A Study on
Tadashi Sekino’s Research and Conservation for Korean Traditional Architecture.” Han’guk k ŏnch’uk
hakhoe nonmun chip [A Collection of Essays for the Society of Korean Architecture] 12 no. 7 (2006): 135-
146.

11
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, Koseki ch ōsa h ōkoku [Ancient Sites Investigations Reports], vol. 1-19 (Keijo: Ch ōsen
S ōtokufu, 1918-1937).

31

establish, then uproot, Korea’s once ancient ties to China. Once Korea’s dependence on
China could be visually demonstrated by its strong imitation of Chinese styles, it would
be a small matter to assert Korea’s lack of originality and subsequent need for
dependence on Japan, thus justifying Japan’s colonialism to herself and to the
international community. This logic presumed that once the level of Korea’s political
and cultural dependence on China was demonstrated, it would prove that Korea was
incapable of existing on its own.
12
Indeed, “colonialism,” according to Jürgen
Osterhammel, “is not just any relationship between masters and servants, but one in
which an entire society is robbed of its historical line of development, externally
manipulated, and transformed according to the needs and interests of the colonial
rulers.”
13
Also underlying the excavations projects was the aforementioned effort to
prove the common origins of Japan and Korea (nissen dosoron), to thereby undergird the
idea (to the Japanese government) that Korea must be a part of Japan once again.
14

These excavations, then, were more than a scholarly gathering of artifacts, but a
systemized plan by Japan to solidify Japan’s identity as an imperial power and to find
answers to her own past.
In addition to these political agendas, the excavations focused overwhelmingly on
Kory ŏ ceramics. A penchant for Kory ŏ ware already been established by the first

12
Y ŏngch’an O, “Nangnang daebanggun chibae sery ŏk y ŏn’gu [A Study of the Impact
of the Lelang Commanderies]” (Ph.D., diss, Seoul National University Graduate School), 2005.

13
Jürgen Osterhammel, Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers,
1995), 15.

14
Hyung Il Pai. Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and
Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 15.

32

Resident-General, Ito Hirobumi, which in turn fueled a popular demand for these items in
Japan. Korean ceramics had been highly regarded in Japan for centuries. Bowls from the
Chos ŏn dynasty had surpassed the highest quality Japanese bowls during the late
sixteenth century in the context of the tea ceremony, a powerful social practice in Japan
that served to legitimize collecting habits.
15
Already by 1909, the huge number of Kory ŏ
ceramics found and taken to Japan resulted in an exhibition in Japan of Kory ŏ ceramics
which alone numbered nearly 900 pieces.
16

Once these excavations were under way, with an unforeseen number of artifacts
being uncovered, the colonial government needed to legitimate its control over the
historical “proof” that was being unearthed. This was accomplished by implementing
cultural property laws. These served two practical purposes: to make the excavations
legal in the eyes of the world and to introduce a (Japanese-friendly) system of value to
the found objects. During the course of the entire colonial period, a total of four cultural
properties laws were passed, introducing to Korea the concept that these found objects
should be protected and, by this very protection, that the objects possessed value.

The Origins of Korea’s Cultural Property Laws - Japan
Japan’s own cultural property laws date back to 1871 with the passage of the Koki
ky ūbutsu hozon kata [古器舊物保存方 Edict for the Preservation of Antiquities or

15
Pai, (2000), 13.

16
Kuknip minsok pakmulgwan [National Korean Folk Museum], Ilche ui munhwachae ch ŏngch’aek
py ŏnka semina [A Seminar of the Assessment of the Cultural Properties Policies during the Colonial
Period] (Seoul: Kuknip minsok pakmulgwan [National Korean Folk Museum], 1996), 55.

33

literally, the Means of Preserving Antiquities] enacted in May of that year (Meiji 4),
Order No. 151.
17
This first cultural property “law” established a rationale for the
preservation of those antiquities that the government felt to be endangered. In this case,
the danger, as perceived by Japan’s intelligentsia, was the overwhelming influx of
Western ideas, concepts, and objects. Though at first welcomed, later during the Meiji
era (1868-1912) these Western imports were perceived to threaten the existence of
Japan’s own traditional culture. That art played an influential role in the early stages of
the modernization of the nation was already a well-understood concept: “From as early as
the Iwakura mission to the United States and Europe (1871-73), Meiji leaders saw art as
an important component to reinscribe Japan’s past, thereby establishing the nation’s
subjectivity as it modernized.”
18

The Means of Preserving Antiquities focused on protecting ancient and traditional
items rather than contemporary art crafts and was no more than a list of seemingly
random artifacts such as bow and arrows, stone axes, old books and paintings, writing
instruments, stationary accessories such as ink stone and writing tools, old fieldwork
tools, household goods such as eating utensils and smoking utensils, ceramics, tea sets,
incense burners, and old Buddhist statuary and accessories. Ironically, this legislation
came upon the heels of a prior government-organized mass destruction of Buddhism and

17
Nai kakukan h ōkyoku [Official Gazette of the Secretary of the Interior], “Koki ky ūbutsu hozon kata
[Edict for the Preservation of Antiquities or literally, the Means of Preserving Antiquities],” in H ōrei
zensho Keio 3 nen 10 gatsu – Meiji 45 nen 7 gatsu [Compilation of Law from October 1868 – July 1912,
H ōrei zensho Meijo 4 nen [Daisekan 251]] (Tokyo: Nai kakukan h ōkyoku, 1871).

18
Stefan Tanaka, “Imaging History: Inscribing Belief in the Nation” in The Journal of Asian Studies 53,
no. 1 (1994), 27.

34

all tangible things related to it during the government’s attempt to extinguish and separate
Buddhism from the newly state-designated religion of Shintoism. In this reversal of
policy, Buddhist temple objects, for example, which had been previously targeted for
destruction, suddenly became objects worth saving. The pecking order was, nevertheless,
apparent. Among the 32 categories outlined in the 1871 order, Shinto objects occupied
category number 1 and Buddhist items were relegated to the bottom of the list at number
31.
19

By the second Japanese cultural property law of 1897, Koshaji hozon h ō
[古社寺保存法 The Protection of Old Shrines and Temples Law], which was
administered by the Secretary of Interior, the focus was not only on the protection of
shrines and temples in particular, since the Japanese surveyors had discovered that many
cultural treasures lay in the possession of these temples and shrines, but on increasing the
government’s control over Japan’s cultural properties. Indeed, this was the first type of
cultural properties law to make object registration the sole responsibility of the
government. Japanese bureaucrats, who served on the registration committee possessed
more of a political background than a cultural one regarding the promotion of cultural
properties, a feature that will be seen later in the colonial committees under the colonial
cultural property laws as well.
20
Instantly, these cultural properties, in essence, became

19
Julie Christ Oakes, “Faint Traces and Hints of Color: Contestation and the Japanese National Treasure
System” (M.A., University of Chicago, 2000), 25.

20
S ŭnghun Yu, “Hy ŏnjang sok ŭi munhwajae ch ŏngch’aek [Cultural Properties Policy Today].” In
Han’guk munhwajae pohob ŏp ŭi palch ŏn kwach ŏng kwa ch ŏngbi panghyang [The Development-Process
and Equipment-Orientation of the Law for Protection of Cultural Properties in Korea] (Ch’ ŏngju:
Ch’ungbuk National University, 2002), 24.
35

Japan’s national treasures. In other words, by the enactment of this law, what had been
for centuries the property of generations of monks and temples, overnight were
transformed into the nation’s cultural properties. In order to oversee this control, the law
outlined an elaborate administrative structure that involved the Secretary of Interior, local
officials, the temples, a manager appointed by the Secretary of Interior, allotment of
expenses for repairs, and fines for any misbehavior or damage that was to be incurred
upon the designated object. Each registration was to be reported in the kanpo (official
gazette) to make it known that the object could no longer be bought or sold.
21

These first two legal mandates served a purpose greater than the mere beginnings
of cultural property protection for Japan. Their significance lay in the meaning with
which the Japanese chose to imbue these newly-protected artifacts. For as influential
Japanese art scholar Okakura Tenshin (1862-1913) articulated, it was the art of Japan’s
past that held the key to revitalizing and reinstating the unity of the nation.
22
The
Japanese government had discovered early on during the Meiji period (1868-1912) that
ancient artifacts could be used to justify imperial power, and ultimately, to (re)write
history. By preserving objects found in royal tombs and temples, a “solid” chronological
link could be made to connect Japan’s mythic founder Jimmu to that of the present ruling
imperial family. This connection was essential in legitimating the authority of the

21
Nai kakugu h ōkyoku [Official Gazette of the Secretary of the Interior]. “Koshaji hozon h ō [Law for the
Protection of Ancient Shrines and Temples],” in H ōrei zensho Keio 3 nen 10 gatsu – Meiji 45 nen 7 gatsu
[Compilation of Law from October 1868 – July 1912, Meiji 30 nen, 6 gatsu 10 ichi [Horitsu
dai 49 go] (Tokyo: Nai kakukan h ōkyoku, 1897).

22
Tanaka, 30.

36

imperial family in the eyes of the Japanese public. Next was the inherent value these
ancient objects held in proving Japan’s worth to the international public. In 1872, a
treasure survey was carried out supposedly to find suitable goods to present at the Vienna
Exposition of 1873,
23
strongly suggesting that now Japanese ancient artifacts were being
showcased at world’s fairs for their technical craftsmanship and ingenuity. Indeed, as
scholars have noted, Japan at this time was preoccupied with carrying out efforts not only
to impress the West but to demonstrate that it was capable of being on par with the West.
Prime Minister Itô Hirobumi (1841-1919), who later became the first Resident General of
Korea in December 1905, clearly expressed his intent and full awareness on this matter:
For an empire presided over by an unbroken Imperial line [my italics], to
lose the diplomatic trust of all the nations of the world because we have
not yet clarified the successive generations of Imperial tombs would be a
serious thing. We must quickly investigate this matter, thereby exalting
the national essence (kokutai) both at home and abroad.
24

Concurrent with such political ambitions, the excavators of these ancient artifacts
were aware that their work would constitute the foundation for Japanese art history. The
contributions of two of the better known key investigators for these projects, Kuki
Ryûichi (九鬼隆一 )(1852-1931) and Ernest Fenollosa (1853-1908), were critical in the
organization of the cultural artifacts and in highlighting their artistic significance to the
public. Their work promoted the appreciation of ancient Japanese art, catalogued and

23
Oakes, 20.

24
As quoted in Hiroshi Takagi, “1880s nendai, yamato ni okeru bunkazai hogo [Japan’s cultural policy
protection laws during the 1880s],” in Kindai tenn ōsei no bunkashiteki kenky ū: tenn ō sh ūnen girei, nenjy ū,
gy ōji, bunkazai [Modern Japan’s Monarchial Cultural History: Coronation, Ceremonial Symbols, and
Annual Festivals], ed. Takagi Hiroshi (Tokyo: Azekura shob ō, 1997), 269.

37

registered ancient artifacts, arranged a historical chronology for the artifacts, occupied
governmental commissions and review boards, and gave direction to the foremost art
institutions such as the Tokyo School of Fine Arts and the Art Department of the Imperial
Museum.
25
It was Kuki who devised a qualification list to assess each object by
recording the subject, location, maker, age, grade, quality, size, material, color,
relationship to other articles, and general situation/context of the period of the objects.
26

His approach was completely revolutionary for its time in Japan and was later
implemented in Korea. Fenollosa, trained at Harvard, attempted to organize a stylistic
narrative to the Japanese artifacts being uncovered, and in Hegelian fashion, he assigned
a pattern of rises and peaks to the different periods in Japanese art. His 2-volume book,
The Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art, explicates his resulting theories.
27
According
to historian Stefan Tanaka, Okakura Kakuz ō (also known as Okakura Tenshin), Kuki,
and Fenollosa together were instrumental in the selection, codification, and
institutionalization of what has now come to be known as Japanese art history.
28
While
much more has been written on the work of these three figures in Japan, what is
significant here for us is that their contributions and initiatives were carried over, not
surprisingly, to the understanding of Korea’s colonial artifacts as well. In the larger

25
Tanaka, 30.

26
Oakes, 44.

27
Ernest Fenollosa, Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art, Vol. 1 and 2 (London: W. Heinemann, 1912), 1-
235.

28
Tanaka, 30-31.

38

picture, all these efforts in turn point towards the ongoing and increasing importance that
the Japanese government was attributing towards amassing and organizing its cultural
treasures. Further, these three monumental figures institutionalized the idea of art as an
expression of national cultural heritage,
29
indicating that they already saw their ancient
artifacts as art.

The Colonial Legalization of Cultural Properties Ownership
The first Japanese Resident-General in Korea, Ito Hirobumi (1905-1909) made it
one of his first priorities to establish the Ky ōk ō zaisan kanri kitei [鄕校財産管理規定
Regulation for the Management of Local-school Assets]. Enacted on April 23, 1910
Order No. 23,
30
this regulation can be considered the beginnings of the cultural property
system of Korea. It initiated the organization and management of all properties and
assets associated with local schools by prohibiting the buying and selling of local school
assets without the provincial governor’s permission.
31
Unusually, this law was
implemented four months prior to Korea’s official annexation in 1910, an action that
speaks volumes about the potential importance and urgency of hyanggyo or local schools
management for the colonial government. Although not a fully developed cultural
property regulation, the hyanggyo regulation did emphasize effective hyanggyo

29
Ibid, 27.

30
Resident-General of Korea, Ky ōk ō zaisan kanri kitei [K:Hyanggyo chaesan kwalli kyuj ŏng][E:
Regulation for the Management of Local-school Assets], enacted on April 23, 1910, Order No. 23.

31
Ibid., 54.

39

management and created a comprehensive inventory of assets by ordering strict
bookkeeping records and any subsequent changes to be kept by the police. Still, this
regulation foreshadowed the kind of cultural property laws to be established during the
colonial period.
Because of the number of cultural artifacts found hidden in temples and shrines in
Japan, colonial authorities looked to Korea’s temples and shrines to find the same, and
one year after the hyanggyo regulation, on June 1911, they passed a Ji setsu rei [寺刹令
Temple Law], Order No. 7.
32
This law established provisions to preserve certain
designated temples, mandating that these temples: request permission from the
Government-General of Korea if they were to merge, move from one place to another,
close down, or change their names [Article 1]; have temple regulations approved by the
Government-General of Korea [Article 3]; and prevent having any of their items bought
or sold without the permission of the Government-General of Korea [Article 5]. Any
violations to these articles were accompanied by a strict fine [Article 6, No. 1-5].
33
As a
consequence of this law, all temple belongings were required to be reported to the
Government-General of Korea, and an index of registered goods was drawn up, thereby
producing for the first time ever in Korea a mandatory, government-controlled,

32
Ch ōsen s ōtokufu, Ji setsu rei [E: Temple Law], Order No. 7, was passed in 1911.

33
Ch ōsen s ōtokufu, 1911.

40

comprehensively-catalogued inventory of temple goods,
34
inspired directly by Sekino’s
compiled findings of 1904.
35

Both the hyanggyo regulation and the temple law targeted cultural institutions
first, thus casting the widest net of “protection” as quickly as possible. Compared with
the Temple and Shrines Law in Japan, which emphasized protection of the object, the
cultural property laws for Korea placed more emphasis on the power of the state,
conveyed in an increasingly authoritarian tone. For example, whereas the 1910 hyanggyo
regulation assigned all power to a provincial governor, the Korean Temple Law of 1911
more explicitly mandates colonial government direct control and access to these objects,
all conducted under the direct purview of the Government-General of Korea itself.

The 1916 Law
Japan’s 1871 Means of Preserving Antiquities Law introduced the concept of
government-controlled cultural properties and listed the kinds of objects to be protected,
while the 1897 Protection of Old Shrines and Temples Law explicitly designated to the
Secretary of the Interior responsibilities for the management of expenses for overseeing
the cultural properties and financial punishment if laws were not followed. Likewise, the
1910 colonial law, the Regulation for the Management of Local-school Assets,

34
Yunch ŏng Ch’oe, “1962 ny ŏn chej ŏng munhwajae pohobop y ŏn’gu [An Analysis of the 1962
Designated Cultural Properties Law].” M.A.thesis, [Sungshin Womens' University Graduate School], 2007,
9.

35
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, Ch ōsen S ōtokufu shisei nenp ō [The Yearly Records of the Government-General
of Ch ōsen] (Keij ō: Kokugaku Shiry ōin [Academic Research Institute], (reprint) 1983-1984, originally
published annually: (Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, 1912-1943. Vol. for 1910 bound with: Kankoku shisei
nenp ō, dai 3-ji (Meiji 42-nen [1909])), 35.

41

introduced to Korea the concept of compiling an inventory. The 1911 Temple Law
restricted the power of the temples to buy or sell their goods while increasing colonial
control over temple management and finances, with violations accompanied by fines as
well. Taken together, these four laws, two from Japan and two from Korea, serve as the
backdrop for the introduction of Korea’s first official cultural properties law, Koseki
oyobi ibutsu hozon kisoku [古蹟及遺物保存規則 Regulations on the Preservation of
Ancient Sites and Relics], enacted July 1916, CS Order No. 52
36
[Refer to Appendix B].
The eight articles in the 1916 law articulated a list of objects to be protected
[Article 1] under strong police control and enforcement [Article 3-7], and fines [Article
8]. In addition, the 1916 law introduced a registration list to be utilized as a basis for
following the articles of the law, using registration standards that exactly mirror the ones
established by Kuki Ry ūichi earlier in Japan, including the name of object, type of object,
size, where it came from, who presently possessed said item, address of current location,
condition, historical provenance, and how the item must be protected. This type of law
had not yet existed in Japan and appears to have been a form of experimentation to
determine the viability of such a law there. Established by the colonial government in an
effort to classify and organize the artifacts gathered from the on-going survey expeditions,
this law attempted to define which objects possessed cultural value and therefore merited
protection and which did not. The law implicitly employs a Sekino’s four-tier ranking
system with k ō (highest or grade A) [K: gab], otsu (second highest, or grade B) [K: yeul],

36
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, “Koseki oyobi ibutsu hozon kisoku [E: Regulations on the Preservation of Ancient
Sites and Relics],” Government-General of Korea (Ch ōsen S ōtokufu) Order No. 52, enacted July 1916.

42

hei or, hinoe, meaning third highest or grade C) [K: by ŏng], and tei (fourth highest or
grade of D or F) [K: ch ŏng]. The highest and second highest ranked objects were
deemed worthy of protection categorized as either koseki (historical relic) or ibutsu (relic).
Article 1 cites examples of what constituted a koseki, but adds, vaguely, that a koseki is
simply anything related to historical fact. An ibutsu, the article continues, equally
ambiguously, is a relic that should represent history and archaeological materials.
37
The
remaining six articles of the 1916 regulations were unusual in the overbearing authority
and role given to the colonial police. Any new artifact discovery became the
responsibility of the police. Every action, fine, and misdemeanor demanded by the law
was overseen initially by the police, who then reported to the Government-General of
Korea.
With the enactment of the 1916 law, a total of 193 objects were registered, with
pagodas, stone and iron Buddhas, and stone monuments occupying the largest
percentages:

37
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, Chos ŏn koj ŏk chosa pogo [An Investigation of Korea’s Koj ŏk] (Seoul: Han’guk
inmunkwa hakw ŏn [Korean Humanities Research Institute]), Article 2.

43

Table 1.1916 Designated Objects and Province Excavated
38

Percent Items Type
37.5 72 pagodas (tap)
19.3 37 stone and iron Buddhas
12.5 24 stone monuments (pi)
7.8 15 pillar, post
3.1 6 bells (chong)
1.0 2 tower (dae)
0.5 1 bridge (gyo)
16.7 32.0 misc
39

Province # of items
Ky ŏngsangbukdo 41
Ky ŏnggido 38
Kangw ŏndo 26
Ch’ungch’ ŏngnamdo 25
Chollabukdo 13
Ky ŏngsangnamdo 13
Ch’ungch’ ŏngbukdo 9
Chollanamdo 8
Py ŏngannamdo 7
Hwanghaedo 5
Py ŏnganbukdo 4
Hamgy ŏngnamdo 2
Hamgy ŏngbukdo 1

The 1916 list concentrates on potentially movable objects from the former Three
Kingdoms territories. The provinces of Ky ŏngsangbukdo (former Silla territory),
Ky ŏnggido (former Kogury ŏ), and Kangw ŏndo (former Kogury ŏ) occupy the top three

38
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu Gakumukyoku [Education Bureau of the Government-General of Korea], Koseki oyobi
ibutsu t ōroku daich ō sh ō roku [A Summary of the Registered List of Historical Remains and Ancient
Relics] (Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Korea], 1924).

39
Object (number of items, percentage): Flute (2, 1.0), trough (3, 1.6), pagoda stone monument (3, 1.6),
round stone tomb monument (1, 0.5), cauldron (1, 0.5), lamp (3, 1.6), stone foundation (2, 1.0), rock ice
storage (2, 1.0), rock carving (5, 2.6), well (1, 0.5), rock animals (3, 1.6), ? (1, 0.5), carved Buddha (1, 0.5),
badge (1, 0.5), column (1, 0.5), supporting buttress (1, 0.5), military weapons (1, 0.5).

44

historical sites excavated, with Ch’ungch’ ŏngnamdo (former Paekche territory) following
a nearly equivalent third. Kogury ŏ, at one time occupied the geographic regions of
China, Paekche had dynamic trade and cultural ties with Japan, and Silla was considered
by Tadashi Sekino, the Japanese architectural historian sent on assignment to Korea, as
producing what has become the peak of Korean artistic achievement. Thus, the majority
of the locations from which these objects were excavated, including Chollabukdo (former
Paekche territory) and Ky ŏngsangnamdo (former Silla territory), point to a deliberate
intentionality on the part of the excavators, and thus the colonial government, to match
objects found at these sites to their original historical provenance thus legitimizing claims
that Korea’s ancient heritage was derived from China (Kogury ŏ) and Japan (Paekche).
What is missing from the list are the formerly dominant arts of Chos ŏn, painting and
pottery. Clearly the unstated purpose of this law was to emphasize select artifacts of
particular historical and political value rather than of artistic merit.
In addition to having this particular level of authority entrenched in the
management of Korea’s cultural properties, a screening committee, the koseki chosa
ininkai [古蹟調査委員會 Historical Remains Investigation Committee], by Government-
General Order 52, was established with the responsibilities of designating koseki and
ibutsu.
40
The members of this committee initially began with five to six members but
eventually grew to fifteen,
41
all Japanese high officials. The head of this committee, the
koseki chosa ininkai ininch ō, was also the Government-General of Korea Head of

40
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, 1916.

41
Ch’oe, Yunch ŏng, 71.

45

Department of Political Affairs, who entrusted the other members with the day-to-day
responsibilities of managing the relics:
The Vice Governor-General acted as the chairman while the members
were appointed from among the high officials of the Government-General
(directors of various bureaus and departments as well as directors of
public works, construction, treasury, secretariat, archives, education,
forestry, district sections . . . . The research commission, therefore, is an
organization of inquiry and at the same time of supervision of the business
connected with the research on and preservation of ancient remains and
relics.
42

These men were bureaucrats, not art scholars, yet the responsibilities of the committee
were as follows: to determine the validity and worthiness of koseki and ibutsu, to assess
aspects of their collection and preservation, to engage in discussions relating to their
ongoing maintenance, and to be involved in the research, study, and collection of old
books and documents as stated in the law.
43
Sekino describes that “the plan to protect
ancient remains and relics was carried out by the enforcement of the ‘Regulations for the
Preservation of Ancient Remains and Relics’ registering in the ledger of the office of the
Government-General those objects and historic monuments recognized by the
commission as important [my italics].”
44
The fact that this commission was composed of

42
Tadashi Sekino. Ancient Remains and Relics in Korea: Efforts toward Research and
Preservation: prepared for the fourth bi-annual conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations to be held at
Hangzhou from October 21
st
– November 4, 1931 (Tokyo: The Japan Council of the Institute of Pacific
Relations, 1931), 8-9.

43
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, Chos ŏn koj ŏk chosa pogo [An Investigation of Korea’s Koj ŏk] (Seoul: Han’guk
inmunkwa hakw ŏn [Korean Humanities Research Institute]), Committee Regulations, Article 5.

44
Sekino (1931), 18.

46

such high level officials and that the person-in-charge was the head of political affairs is
an indication about the colonial government’s motivation for designating treasures in
Korea.

The 1933 Law
The 1916 regulations remained in place for eighteen years until a revision was
passed in 1933, the Chōsen h ōmotsu koseki meish ō tenzen kinenbutsu hozon zei
[朝鮮寶物古蹟名勝天然紀念物保存令 Law for the Preservation of Treasures, Historic
Remains, Scenic Sites, and Natural Monuments in Korea]. The categories of historic
remains, scenic sites, and natural monuments were added as new categories, but control
was not relinquished by the Government-General of Korea. The law placed greater
restrictions on the objects, in response to the high numbers of them that were being sold
and taken out of the country (mostly to Japan) despite the 1916 law.
45
With the 1933

45
An official reasoning (supposedly) for establishing these two laws, 1916 and 1933, in Korea was to
discourage looters from taking excavated artifacts out of the country, and, in nearly all cases, taking them
back to Japan. This was a serious and rampant problem involving high-ranking officials to low-level
amateur looters. The laws articulated fines for those caught engaged in these actions; nonetheless, over the
course of 35 years, tens of thousands of artifacts were taken. Evidently, police control could not possibly
keep track of all the illegal excavations that were taking place. Or, as some have suspected, the police
themselves may have actually have aided in the illegal smuggling. It was no secret that the demand for the
artifacts was directly influenced by lists and catalogues published by the survey teams to publicize their
“progress” on the peninsula. As early as 1904, writer Yoshikura Bonn ō [吉倉凡農](dates unknown) had
published a section in his book outlining the profits to be made by selling looted goods on the black market.
This was offered as an option for a lucrative profession, as it were, to the newly immigrated Japanese
population. In a twist of irony, only in a handful of publicized cases were the taken objects negotiated to be
returned to Korea. Given the lack of efficacy of these laws, their true purpose must be questioned. Indeed,
some Korean critics of the Japanese-established cultural properties system have accused the Japanese
colonial government of purposefully surveying and organizing the found artifacts to produce lists that
would allow for easier seizure of goods back to Japan under the pretense of protection where they were
prized by the Japanese antique collectors, bought by and sold to Japanese museums, or kept in private
collections.

47

revision (passed on August 9, Order No. 66)
46
[refer to Appendix C], cultural property
protection broadened the types of objects protected to include treasures, famous places,
natural scenery, and additional categories of fine arts, sculpture, and art crafts – in other
words, explicit categories for works of art were added to the previous groupings of
historical interest. With this new law, a new deliberating committee was formed,
composed of a panel of mostly Japanese bureaucrats but this time with two Korean
members – famed author Ch’oe Namson (1890-1957) and Buddhist religious scholar Yi
N ŭnghwa (1865-1945).
47

Notably, the revised law placed greater emphasis on the registration of objects,
rather than the designation. For example, private citizens were required to deliver their
registered antiques to the museums within one year of the passage of the law.
Furthermore, the 1933 law increased restrictions on the movement of the objects to
combat the increase in number of thefts.
48
According to a list compiled in 1937, which
reflects the revised 1933 law, we see the same types of objects comprise the top three
percentages of objects as in 1916:

46
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, “Ch ōsen h ōmotsu koseki meish ō tenzen kinenbutsu hozon zei [E: Law for the
Preservation of Treasures, Historic Remains, Scenic Sites, and Natural Monuments],” enacted December
1933 in the Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe hoe ŭirok [Minutes of Cultural Properties Protection Committee], 1952-
1962. Seoul: Kukka kirokw ŏn [National Archives], 2007 by the Mungyobu [Ministry of Education].

47
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, Ch ōsen h ōmotsu koseki zuroku [Plates of Korean treasures and historic remains]
(Keijo: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, 1938), 59-62.

48
S ŭnghun Yoo suggests that the upcoming war preparations with China forced many people to sell their
antiques for money (p.34). The Japanese Important Properties Law was an attempt to keep these objects in
the country.

48

Table 2. 1937 Designated Objects
49

Percent Items Type
28.6 77 pagoda (tap)
15.2 41 Buddhas:
7.4 20 stone seated Buddha
7.8 21 standing Buddha
10.0 27 stele (pi)
7.1 19 palace (ch ŏn)
6.3 17 ?
3.7 10 lamp (dŭng)
3.3 9 budo
3.0 8 gate (mun)
2.2 6 bell (chong)
1.9 5 pagoda stele (tap pi)
1.1 3 tower (dae)
1.1 3 bridge (gyo)
0.4 1 iron ?
0.4 1 pavilion (dang)
12.3 33 misc.
50

By 1929, the Japanese government was compelled to enact their own Kokuh ō
hozon h ō [國寶保存法 National Treasures Protection Law] explicitly for the recognition,
protection, and distinction of National Treasures, strongly suggesting that an increased
importance was being given to the objects themselves. Although the 1933 revision
mimicking categories based on the 1929 Japanese National Treasures law, there is no
reference to national treasures anywhere in the 1933 law. One would have expected that
given the priority and haste with which the colonial government began its surveys and

49
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu and the Mungyobu [Ministry of Education], Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu
mit mungyobu palhaeng munhwajae kwangye charyojip [A Collection of Essays Relating to Cultural
Properties published by the Ch ōsen Sotokufu and the Ministry of Education] (Seoul and Tokyo: Ch ōsen
S ōtokufu] and Ministry of Education, 1992), 67-85.

50
Flute (1, 0.4), tunnel (1, 0.4), trough (5, 1.9), ice storage (2, 0.7), rock carving (1, 0.4), hall (4, 1.5),
animal? (1, 0.4), wine bottle (2, 0.7), mirror (2, 0.7), Buddha triad (1, 0.4), writings (2, 0.7), book cover (1,
0.4), tray (1, 0.4), spear (1, 0.4), sword (1, 0.4), letter (mun – 1, 0.4), ancestral shrine (2, 0.7), garret? (3,
1.1), lodge? (1, 0.4).
49

instituted cultural property laws on the Korean peninsula, it would have been eager to
claim to have found objects such as the National Treasures, or even Japanese National
Treasures, thus bolstering claims that their colony was not merely an extension of their
modern boundaries, but historically part of an imperial Japan. But the colonial
government did not. This lack of any designations of “national treasure” suggests a
discomfort, an ambiguous stance, by the Japanese government: on the one hand, they
laboriously sought archaeological evidence to link both countries; on the other hand, they
did not want to recognize Korea’s treasures as possessing equal status with their own.

Post Liberation – 1945 and Korea’s National Treasures
The final compilation and registration of cultural objects was conducted by the
colonial government in 1943. Soon after liberation in September 1945, a new foreign
government in the south, that of the U.S. military occupation, gained temporary control
over reclaiming and reallocating governmental possessions and items back to the South
Korean government. Notably during this time, the Korean ancient artifacts were not
ignored or forgotten; immediately after liberation, the U.S. government worked to ensure
the safety of museum objects. On November 12, 1945, the U.S. occupation ordered the
former colonial government to report all sites and private collections deemed worthy of
special protection. Objects that had been previously registered by the colonial authorities
and in private collections
51
were reported to the U.S. military.
52
In the same month, all

51
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Summation of Non-Military Activities in Japan and Korea,
1 (November 1945), 163.
50

Japanese signs on monuments and palace grounds were replaced with Korean and
English signs. According to General Notice No. 7, dated December 31, 1945, the
General Affairs Section of the Secretariat allowed Korean nationals and institutions to
recover any art, cultural, and religious property that was taken by force by the Japanese
authorities during the colonial period. Claims for damages were not allowed.
53
In the
following year, June 1946, the non-governmental Society for the Preservation of National
Treasures, Historical Relics, and Sites, named by the U.S. government and sponsored and
partially subsidized by the U.S. government, was formed to safeguard and preserve
cultural properties on behalf of the Korean government. Under the category of
“Protection of Cultural Objects” in November 1945:
The Japanese Government was ordered on 12 November to report on all
sites considered important enough to deserve special protection by
military commanders. A partial list of 599 cultural sites has been received.
Data on privately owned collections of cultural significance is being
sought.
54

Under the category of “Arts and Religion” in January 1946:
General Notice No. 7 of 31 December 1945 allows Korean nationals and
institutions to take steps to recover art, religious and other cultural
property taken by the Japanese under duress during the period of Japanese
domination. Claims for damages for the destruction of property are not
permissible.
55

52
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Summation of Non-Military Activities in Japan and Korea,
1 (November 1945), 194.

53
Commander-in-Chief, United States Army Forces, Pacific, Summation of United States Army Military
Government Activities in Korea 4 (January 1946), 292.

54
Commander-in-Chief, United States Army Forces, Pacific, Summation of United States Army Military
Government Activities in Korea 2 (November 1945), p. 163.

55
Commander-in-Chief, United States Army Forces, Pacific, Summation of United States Army Military
Government Activities in Korea 4 (January 1946), p. 292.
51

Under the category of “Culture” in June 1946:
A SCAP representative was reported to be compiling a comprehensive list
of national treasures. The list included description, location, conditions,
and periodic inspection reports.
56

A separate Korean committee for the preservation of treasures, relics, historic sites, and
natural places was also organized to restore monuments and relics defaced by neglect or
vandalism. The National Museum, formerly the Museum of the Government-General,
was opened on February 25, 1946.
57

The scope of these activities indicates that these objects, “illicitly” excavated by a
colonial government, had now been adopted by Koreans to carry the value assigned to
them by the Japanese. Preservation of the objects became key, especially during the
Korean War (1950-1953), when the north had briefly taken possession of the National
Museum.
58
When the south temporarily regained possession of the museum, the objects
were stealthily maneuvered in railroad carts from Seoul to Pusan for fear of being
discovered by the north, through the efforts of two men, American Captain Eugene I.
Knezevich
59
(1912-2010) and Korean Kim Chew ŏn (1909-1990). Together, they hid the

56
Commander-in-Chief, United States Army Forces, Pacific, Summation of United States Army Military
Government Activities in Korea 9 (June 1946), p. 77.

57
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Summation of Non-Military Activities in Japan and Korea,
1 (December 1945), 201.

58
S ŭnghun Yu, “Ilche sigi munhwajae pohob ŏp ŭi ‘chungch ŏm pohoju ŭi’ wa ‘pogwalch ŏk popche’ e
kwanhay ŏ [A Study on the Protective Principle in Priority and Inclusive Legislation of the Law for
Protection of Cultural Properties During the Japanese Colonization]” Y ŏksa minsokhak [Historical
Folk Studies], (2003), 47-48.

52

crates of Korean cultural properties on the second floor of the Pusan Alien Properties
Customer Center for the remainder of the war, whose first floor functioned as a
warehouse for medical supplies.
60
While many objects were successfully saved this way,
approximately 7,100 items
61
were lost, in the south from U.S. military bombings and in
the north where they were thereafter extremely difficult to access. Throughout this
period - since there was apparently no time to make any fundamental changes to the
system - the 1933 law, as with many other Japanese laws shortly after liberation,
remained intact until the enactment of Korea’s first own official cultural property law in
1962.
The following 1956 list, reflecting a total of 419 items, shows that items #1-#269
are identical to the previous 1937 colonial list, leaving 150 items that were added
between the years 1938-1956. It is difficult to pinpoint the number of listed items in
1943, the last year the colonial administration designated objects. Furthermore, the
committee minutes of the munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe indicate that objects were being added
and deleted as early as 1952. Nonetheless, the types of objects and original provincial

59
In 1949, Captain Eugene I Knezevich later shortened his family name to “Knez.” He had been assigned
to the Bureau of Culture, National Department of Education of the American Military Government. With a
background in anthropology, his responsibilities included the restoration of cultural and religious activities,
including museums. [Alan L. Bain, Register to the Papers of Eugene I. Knez (Part 2). Washington D.C.:
National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, 2002.)], 1.

60
David I. Steinberg, “The National Museum of the Republic of Korea,” in Selected Studies in Korean Art,
ed. RAS Transactions Vol. XLIV (Seoul: Sahm-bo Publishing Corporation, 1968), 35; Hyung Il Pai,
Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in
Korean State-Formation Theories (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 240.

61
S ŭnghun Yu, “Hy ŏnjang sok ŭi munhwajae ch ŏngch’aek [Cultural Properties Policy Today].” In
Han’guk munhwajae pohob ŏp ŭi palch ŏn kwach ŏng kwa ch ŏngbi panghyang [The Development-Process
and Equipment-Orientation of the Law for Protection of Cultural Properties in Korea], 19-62. Ch’ ŏngju:
Ch’ungbuk National University, 2002, 47-49.

53

location still provide an idea of what kinds of objects were emphasized prior to the
enactment of the 1962 Cultural Properties Law and from which historical location the
objects were excavated.

Table 3. 1956 Designated Objects and Province Excavated
62

419 total. Objects up to #269 are the same as the 1937 list, thus 150 items added between
the years 1938-1956. The percentages below are of the 150 new items only.

Percent Items Type
19.3 29 pagoda (tap)
17.4 26 buddhas
10.7 16 seated Buddha
6.7 10 standing Buddha
11.3 17 palace
5.3 8 pavilion
5.3 8 lamp
4.0 6 stone monument (pi)
4.0 6 pillar, post
2.0 3 gate
2.0 3 budo
0.7 1 wine bottle
0.7 1 bell
0.7 1 bell?
0.7 1 ancestral shrine
26.7 40 misc.
63

62
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu and the Mungyobu [Ministry of Education], Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu
mit mungyobu palhaeng munhwajae kwangye charyojip [A Collection of Essays Relating to Cultural
Properties published by the Ch ōsen Sotokufu and the Ministry of Education] (Seoul and Tokyo: Ch ōsen
S ōtokufu] and Ministry of Education, 1992), 35-60.

63
Garret (2, 1.3), eaves (1, 0.7), pavilion (two-story bldg. 1, 0.7), open pavilion (1, 0.7), trough (1, 0.7),
brazier-shaped togi (4, 2.7), road in court? (3, 2.0), pond (1, 0.7), bottle (6, 4.0), deep rice bowl (1, 0.7),
various structures (4, 2.7), tray (1, 0.7), various implements (12, 8.0), daily record (ilgi, 2. 1.3), record (1,
0.7), dish (1, 0.7), roll (writings, 4, 2.7), books (4, 2.7), sculpture (1, 0.7), rock-carving (1, 0.7), ? (1, 0.7).

54

Table 3, continued

Province # of items of total 419 objects
Ky ŏngsangbukdo 104
Ky ŏnggido 68
Chollanamdo 51
Ch’ungch’ ŏngnamdo 43
Kangw ŏndo 38
Chollabukdo 32
Ky ŏngsangnamdo 26
Py ŏngannamdo 17
Hwanghaedo 15
Ch’ungch’ ŏngbukdo 14
Py ŏnganbukdo 6
Hamgy ŏngnamdo 5

As in the earlier 1916 list, this list continues to reflect the geographic focus on the former
territories of Silla (Ky ŏngsangbukdo), Kogury ŏ (Ky ŏnggido), and Paekche
(Chollanamdo), attesting to the ongoing concentration of these areas throughout the
colonial period.

The 1962 Law
The 1962 Munhwajae Pohop ŏp
64
[The Law for the Protection of Cultural
Properties], Law No. 961 introduced in January 1962, was the product of the Korean
committee established in 1952 and the Kukka chaegon ch’egohoeui [Supreme Committee
for Reconstruction of the Country][Refer to Appendix D].

64
The term munhwajae was first officially used on November 10, 1960 with the introduction of the
Munhwajae pojon wiw ŏnhoe kyuj ŏng. [Mungyobu [Ministry of Education], Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe
hoe ŭirok [Minutes of Cultural Properties Protection Committee], 1960, (Seoul: Kukka kirokw ŏn [National
Archives], 2007)].

55

The purpose of the law is stated in Article 1:
The purpose and function of this Act shall be to preserve cultural
properties and make the most of them in pursuance of the promotion of
nationwide cultural aspiration, concurrently with the contribution to the
cultural progress of mankind.
65

In addition to these national endeavors, the 1962 law implemented three new
categories, tangible, intangible, and folklore, allowing a distinction in categorization
between actual objects (tangible) and valuable skills and talents or artists and artisans
(intangible), as well as manners and customs to preserve the ancient way of life (folklore).
Second, the law was stricter in terms of enforcing the prevention of illegal excavations
and raising the consequences for anyone involved in smuggling artifacts out of the
country.
66
Third, the new munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe (cultural properties committee), though
overall still quite similar to previous colonial committees such as the Ch ōsen koseki
chosa ininkai (1916-1929), the Ch ōsen hensan ininkai (1923-1942), and the Chōsen
koseki kenky ūkai (1931-1944)
67
was given more responsibilities and independence from
the government.

65
Ministry of Cultural and Information, Republic of Korea, Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties
(Seoul: Ministry of Information, 1962), 1.

66
P ŏphak y ŏn’guso ch’ungbuk daehakyo [The Law Institute of Ch’ungbuk University], Han’guk
munhwajae pohobop ŭi pakch ŏn kwach ŏng kwa ch ŏngbi panghyang [The Development-Process and
Equipment-Orientation of the Law for Protection of Cultural Properties in Korea]. Taej ŏn: Munhwajae
ch’ ŏng [Cultural Heritage Administration], 2002, 80.

67
Sunja Lee, “Ilche kangch ŏmgi koj ŏk chosa ŏp y ŏn’gu [A Study of Koj ŏk Investigations During the
Japanese Colonial Period],” (Ph.D. diss., Sookmyung Womens’ University, 2007), 59-92.

56

The basic criteria used by the Korean committee [Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe] after
liberation to determine the worthiness of an artifact continued to be based on location,
current condition, quality, shape and form, size, historical provenance, and
recommendations by the committee members on what was needed in order to properly
protect it – in other words, almost the same criteria as those used by the Japanese.
Finally, it was with this law that a total of 116 Korean National Treasures were officially
born, with 68 objects (58.6%) that were carried over from the colonial period and 48
(41.4%) that were newly selected. The type and provincial breakdown is as follows:
57

Table 4. 1962 Designated Objects and Corresponding Provinces (116 items total)
68

Percent Items Type
21.6 25 stone pagoda (1 marble, 1 brick)
19.8 23 celadon, porcelain, earthenware
19.0 22 Buddha statues
8.6 10 palace halls
5.2 6 stupas
3.5 4 stone lanterns
3.5 4 monuments
3.5 4 stele
3.5 4 gold ornaments
2.6 3 gate
2.6 3 wall painting and portraits
1.7 2 bridge
1.7 2 bell
1.7 2 paintings
0.9 1 flagpole
0.9 1 tower

#1-68 #69-116
Province colonial post-colonial total
Ky ŏnggido 9 40 49
Ky ŏngsangbukdo 26 3 29
Chollanamdo 10 0 10
Ch’ungch’ ŏngnamdo 5 3 8
Ch’ungch’ ŏngbukdo 5 1 6
Ky ŏngsangnamdo 5 1 6
Kangw ŏndo 5 0 5
Chollabukdo 3 0 3
Hwanghaedo 0 0 0
Py ŏngannamdo 0 0 0
Py ŏnganbukdo 0 0 0
Hamgy ŏngnamdo 0 0 0
68 48 116

68
Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe hoe ŭirok [Minutes of Cultural Properties Protection Committee], 1962, (Seoul:
Kukka kirokw ŏn [National Archives], 2007)].

58

Consistently, stone pagodas and Buddhist statues predominate, but pottery had gained
equal predominance, reflecting a status that had pre-dated the colonial period in the
Chos ŏn culture. The presence of pottery indicates the active efforts of the committee to
include a category that was previously absent in the registered lists. The continued
majority of pagodas and Buddhist statues strongly suggest that the proclivities introduced
by the colonial authorities remained influential.
Of the 1962 list, 9 items date back as far as the original 1916 colonial list. Given
their designation longevity, they are worth noting here:
59

Table 5. Overlapping Treasures between the 1916 list and the 1962 list

1962/1916 Name
#2/1 W ŏngaksaji 10 ch’ ŭng s ŏktap [Figure 2]
[Ten-Storied Stone Pagoda on Won’gak Temple Site]

#3/5 Pukhansan Chin ŭngwang sunsubi [Figure 3]
[Monument Commemorating The Border Inspection on Pukhan
Mountain by King Chinh ŭng]

#7/61 Pongs ŏnhonggyŏngsa sach ŏkgalbi [Figure 7]
[Stele of Pongs ŏnhonggyŏng Temple]

#11/70 Mir ŭksaji s ŏktap [Figure 11]
[Stone Pagoda on Mir ŭk Temple site]

#16/76 Andong Sinsedong 7 ch’ ŭng ch ŏntap [Figure 16]
[Seven-storied Brick Pagoda in Shinsedong]

#33/115 Ch’angny ŏng Silla Chin ŭngwang ch’ ŏkgyŏngbi [Figure 33]
[Monument in Ch’angny ŏng Commemorating The Border Inspection
by King Chinhŭng]

#38/95 Kos ŏnsaji 3 ch’ ŭng s ŏktap [Figure 38]
[Three-storied Stone Pagoda from Kos ŏn Temple site]

#40/98 Ch ŏnghyesaji 13 ch’ ŭng s ŏktap [Figure 40]
[Thirteen-storied Stone Pagoda on Chŏnghye Temple site]

#41/33 Yongdusaji ch’ ŏldanggan [Figure 41]
[Iron Buddhist Flagpole on Yongdu Temple site]

What is clear is that an active decision had been made by the Korean government
to make a statement regarding their Korean National Treasures. In Article 4, paragraph 2,
the 1962 law states that the Minister of Education can approve, at his own discretion,
whether a Treasure is most valuable and worthy of being designated a National Treasure.
But in fact this decision is not actually made by the Minister alone. According to the
60

National Archive materials for the Cultural Properties Committee [K: Munhwajae
wiw ŏnhoe] (1952-present), the committee, initially composed of 20 members,
69

deliberated such requests from citizens seeking National Treasure status for their goods
and re-examined the status of National Treasures on the existing list. The application
procedure asked for a description of the object’s location, owner, current status, historical
provenance, as well as ownership provenance, if known, not unlike the registration list in
the law of 1916. In addition, the applicant could specify exactly why the object should be
considered a National Treasure. Other materials included investigations into current
National Treasures to assess any damage and any potential renovations that need to be
done. The decisions rendered by the committee were then sent for approval to the
Minister. In urgent cases, however, the Minister could make the decision alone. Objects
yielded by new excavations were also reviewed to determine National Treasure or
Treasure status.
70
Unfortunately, thus far, the deliberations behind why a particular
treasure was elevated to National Treasure status or why a particular object retained its
treasure status has not been made public.

69
The committee members in 1952 were as follows: H ŏ Chungsu, Kim Chew ŏn, Ch ŏn Hy ŏngpil, Ko
H ŭidong, Son Chaehy ŏng, Yi By ŏngdo, Yi Sangbaek, Yi Kyunsang, Cho My ŏngki, Yi Hongjik, Hwang
Suyong, Im My ŏngchik, Chi S ŭngman, S ŏ Chaesik, Sin Kuy ŏng, Yi Chongyuk, O Chongsik, Ch’oe
B ŏmsul, Kw ŏn Sangro, Yi C Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe ŭi y ŏkhal e kwanhan kich’och ŏk punsik honguk.
[Hongry ŏl Kim, “Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe ŭi y ŏkhal e kwanhan kich’och ŏk punsik [A
Basic Analysis on the Operation of the Cultural Heritage Committee]” Munhwajae 38 (2005): 463 and
Puk ŭn Cho, Ir ŏ b ŏrin uri hwachae r ŭl ch’acha [In Search of Our Lost Cultural Treasures] (Seoul:
Minsokw ŏn, 2004), 620].

70
Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe hoe ŭirok [Minutes of Cultural Properties Protection Committee], 1962, (Seoul:
Kukka kirokw ŏn [National Archives], 2007)].

61

Chapter Conclusion
The two colonial laws of 1916 and 1933 had successfully implemented a
registration and designation system based on excavated objects on the Korean peninsula.
So how did the Koreans treat those objects that the Japanese had identified as favorable
to their own hegemony? The first departure by the Koreans from the pattern laid out by
the Japanese is the elevation of the objects from Treasures to National Treasures. Some
scholars and seemingly reliable sources indicate that it was with the inception of the 1962
law that all Treasures [K: pomul, formerly hōmotsu in Japanese] were initially instantly
converted to National Treasures. The Encyclopedia of Korea, however, states that this
conversion took place as early as 1955.
71
Yet, munhwajae minutes obtained from the
National Archives use the moniker “National Treasures” at the very first meeting,
strongly implying that the objects were already being considered national treasures even
if the objects were not officially “National Treasures” by 1952 or even earlier.
72
The
Korean government continued and expanded upon the laws to include the categories of
tangible and intangible objects as well as folklore, thus finding the designations by the
Japanese to be worth keeping, and in some cases, even worth elevating.
While we are limited by the confidentiality of the decision-making process in
commenting on the reasons objects were retained or rejected by the Koreans, we can
comment on the significance of the decisions themselves. First, with the passage of the

71
Kukpo, in EncyKorea [database-online] (Seoul: Dongbang Media Company Ltd., 2000, accessed 8 May
2007); available from http”//www.encykorea.com/encyweb.dll?TRX?str=62451&ty=2;Internet.

72
Kukka kirokw ŏn [National Archives], Minutes of the temporary Munhwajae Pojonhoe [Cultural
Properties Protection Committee], 1952-1962 [Seoul: National Archives, 2007].

62

1962 law, the Korean government reclaimed ownership of its national treasures, in spite
of the colonial inheritance. Second, active choices were made to redefine what was
considered a Korean cultural property. In addition to previously-made choices, pottery
played a major role in the National Treasures, thus returning pottery to a status that it
once commanded prior to the colonial period which will be discussed in the next chapter.
Richard Handler writes, “As in Locke’s social contract, cultural-property legislation aims
to protect and demonstrate the collective individual’s existence by protecting what it
possesses from the claims of other collective individuals.”
73
Our next chapter will revisit
the role of the individual collector/smuggler during the colonial period who actively
promoted and helped to further relegate value to the artifacts, as well as affecting the
kinds of artifacts that needed to be protected in the first place.

73
Richard Handler, “On Having a Culture: Nationalism and the Preservation of Quebec's Patrimone,” in
Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture, ed. Jr. George W. Stocking (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 214.

63

Chapter 2: Collecting and Art Markets

Chapter Introduction
Much literature has expounded on the evolution, growth, maintenance, and
idiosyncratic nature of collecting -- in the West. Collection activities of 18
th
century
Europe are often attributed to the popularity of the Wunderkammer [cabinet of
curiosities] with its elements of wonderment and aesthetics and even its fetishisms. Pre-
colonial Korean collecting activities were neither rooted in nor influenced by these
European habits, but were guided primarily by Chinese literary and scholarly culture
since the early 16
th
century.
1
Borne out of a predominantly Buddhist culture of the
previous Kory ŏ dynasty (918-1392), the emerging Chos ŏn (1392-1910) Neo-Confucian
philosophy revolutionized society, as well as the arts. The ever-popular painting tradition
flourished as it moved towards non-secular (non-Buddhist) subject matters and the on-
going ceramic tradition embraced past Chinese ideals and transformed them into native
styles at the end of the dynasty. Collecting these items was an articulation of one’s status
in society and such activities had long been the domain of the literati elite.
With the onset of colonization, an additional motivation for collecting emerged,
namely, collecting as a profession, or a way to earn a living, as opposed to the genteel

1
James Cahill, “Confucian Elements in the Theory of Painting,” in The Confucian Persuasion, ed. Arthur
F. Wright (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1960), 115-140; Burglind Jungmann, Painters as Envoys:
Korean Inspiration in Eighteenth-Century Japanese Nanga, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004),
47-74.

64

hobbies of the cultivated elites. Colonial collecting was borne out of the archaeological
activities of a colonial government with its ideological intent. Producing research,
excavation reports, and, most importantly, catalogs of the latest finds created the
conception that these objects being excavated were worth something. For, indeed,
collecting creates value, giving value to previously unrecognized, unvalued objects, and
as we will see, this new cognizance of value contributed to the development of Korea’s
modernity. But which of the excavated objects gained value was determined by the art
dealers, collectors, and brokers who emerged on the art scene during the colonial period.
As James Clifford has put so succinctly, “The critical history of collecting is concerned
with what from the material world specific groups and individuals choose to preserve,
value, and exchange.”
2

Collecting and the Art Market during the Chos ŏn Period
Collecting was not an entirely new concept to colonial Korea. Earlier during the
Chos ŏn period, with Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1912) art and literary trends, the
transmission and import of poems, calligraphy, and paintings became an essential part of
the social elite intercourse in Korea.
3
This pastime was limited mostly to the yangban
elite, whose noble lineage afforded them possession of land or political power, which, in
turn, allowed them greater access to Chinese culture. As a result, for a time, this cultured

2
James Clifford, The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988).

3
Kihong Kim, “Ch ŏngcho munin hwapung ŭi doip kwa suyong [Literary Culture: Its Influence and
Transmission under King Ch ŏngjo]” Yesul nonmun chip [Journal of the National Academy of Arts] 32
(1993), 103.

65

“hobby” was limited to the elites who carried out their activities in the privacy of
gentlemen’s studies rooms [sarangbang], poetry gatherings, and other private venues.
As early as the 16
th
century, market-like characteristics and activities emerged,
occurred more prominently between the 17
th
and 19
th
centuries. The chungin (middle)
class played an increasingly significant role as the economy evolved towards the late
Chos ŏn period. In a highly stratified society, the chungin, a hereditary class of technical
bureaucrats that were socially below the elite yangban, but above the commoners, served
the government as well as practiced law, medicine, and painting. Members of the
professional academy of painters, known as hwaw ŏn,
4
collected and wrote poetry about
the paintings in their possession. Professionals within this class grew to accumulate a
great deal of wealth which for some, allowed greater access to the arts.
Kim Kwangguk, for example, a chungin and a doctor, was a leading collector of
Korean paintings such as those of esteemed painter An Ky ŏn (active 1440-1470). Kim
also collected Chinese paintings, which he then allowed other Korean painters to view.
Kim’s collection, which was largely accumulated by means of special order, was
eventually compiled into an album set, Seoknonghwaw ŏn [literally, “rock and farming
garden of paintings”]. More significantly, by allowing other Korean artists access to his
Chinese painting collection, Chinese artistic styles were transferred to Korea. This

4
According to the Ky ŏnguk Daej ŏn [Legal Code], the hwaw ŏn were established during King Sejo’s 9
th
year
of reign. They were assigned the ch ŏng 6, 7, and 8 pum level, right below the cabinet (yejo panso). It was
not a high designation, thus indicating how the arts were regarded at the time, but their status did improve
during the course of the Chos ŏn dynasty. Their official duties included royal palace assignments, painting
on ceramics, portraits of the king, the prince, and other royal members, landscape, and copying of Chinese
paintings as well as freelance work. [W ŏnyong Kim “Icho ŭi hwaw ŏn [Painters of the Yi Dynasty].”
Hyangto s ŏul [Hyangto Seoul] 11 (1961): 59]; and Hwijoon Ahn “Chos ŏn wangjo sidae ŭi hwaw ŏn
[Painters of the Chos ŏn Dynasty].” Han’guk munhwa [Korean Culture], no. 9 (1988): 147-178.

66

practice of artists viewing Chinese paintings through Korean art collections was quite
common during the Chos ŏn dynasty (1392-1910). Even during the Qing dynasty, famed
Korean painter and calligrapher, Kim Chŏnghŭi (1786-1856), sought Chinese painters for
mentorship in the ways of the Chinese art traditions. As Sung Lim Kim points out,
however, the resulting artistic impact was not necessarily just one-sided. She
convincingly argues that painters themselves were also influenced by the Korean painters
with whom they came into contact. Such relations produced works that visually
confirmed the flourishing regional artistic relations in East Asia at the time. Kim
Chŏnghŭi works had already gained an unsurpassed reputation and created a fierce
demand among Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese alike, producing such collectors as Kim
S ŏkj ŏn and Professor Fujitsuka (first name not given).
5
This kind of demand drove the
value of Kim Ch ŏnghŭi’s paintings astronomically high.
By 1724, the terms “painter (hwaga),” “collector (sujipga),” and “appraisor
(gamsangga)” were in common use. An appraiser was considered to be one who had
access to and attributed value to objects of interest.
6
Not unlike the appraiser was the so-
called “middle man,” for example, Korean literati painter Ch ŏn Ki [1825-1854], who
conducted negotiations between artist and buyer. Alongside the open market, these men
were also mostly of chungin lineage (as opposed to yangban [scholar-official, or literati])
and used their business savvy, a characteristic considered to be beneath the skills of a

5
Sung Lim Kim, “Kim Ch ŏng-H ŭi (1786-1856) and Sehando: The Evolution of a Late Chos ŏn Korean
Masterpiece,” Archives of Asian Art 56 (2006), 38.

6
S ŏnpyo Hong, “Chos ŏn hugi ŭi hoehwa aehopungjo wa kampy ŏng hwaldong [Popular Trends in the
Painting and Criticism of the Late Chos ŏn].” Misulsa nondan [Art Criticism], no. 5 (1997), 119.

67

yangban, to conduct negotiations between interested parties. Often owners of other store
businesses such as pharmacies (hanyak pang), these chungin helped to promote artists by
displaying their paintings and other works to potential customers in their stores.
7
Prices
were negotiated, which required the appearance of, or actual, art connoisseurship. Their
“ability” to render artistic judgments came from their own skills as professional painters
or their accumulated wealth as merchants, which allowed them to own notable collections,
such as that of Kim Han’tae, or even become patrons of their favorite artists, like painter
Kim Hongdo (1745-1806).
8
The increase in patronage and demand for, and therefore
value of, the artworks was accompanied by a significant change in attitude by the artists
themselves, resulting in the emergence of the professional artist. As more collectors
shared their art collections with others, especially with their favorite Korean artists, the
dynamism of the art world and the potential for creativity increased. As a result, the
relationship between art buyer/collector and artist became essential to the growing esteem
of the arts.
Evidence of this growing pastime and enthusiasm for acquired objects can also be
seen in the production of ch’aekkori paintings.
9
These paintings of objects and books
displayed on bookshelves became quite popular, flaunting the owner’s affluence and

7
Sung Lim Kim, “The “Middle People” and the Arts in the Late Chos ŏn Dynasty,” in Association for
Asian Studies Conference Panel: Marginalized Social Groups of the Chos ŏn Period and their Role in the
Production, Promotion and Consumption of Painting (Chicago: Association for Asian Studies, 2009), 4-5.

8
Ibid., 4-6.

9
Ibid., 3.

68

pride in material consumption. Objects once used for practical purposes, were newly
appreciated for their aesthetic appeal.
By the 18
th
century, antique markets, where one could both buy and sell artworks,
had conglomerated around the big cities of Hanyang/Ky ŏnghwa (Seoul), including the
Gwangtonggyo bridge area, and Ky ŏnggi Province, as well as others.
10
Collecting
methods by this time had settled into roughly three categories: maintenance of family
heirlooms or inheritance; purchasing; and by special order.
11
Painter Ch ŏng S ŏn (1676-
1759), for example, was mostly supported by a number of patrons through purchasing,
which included the benefaction of leading collector Yi Py ŏngyŏn. Ch ŏng’s skyrocketing
fame and the subsequent increased value of his works encouraged more people to become
collectors. By January 1892, an article in The Korean Repository reported on the
establishment of curio shops (trinket or collectors’ shops) in Seoul
12
indicating the
prevalence of this type of business.
By the end of the Chos ŏn dynasty, the arts were flourishing, particularly in the
fields of painting and ceramics, and there was an active system of collecting and
exchange. We will see in the next section a slight change in focus of the kinds of objects
that came to be valued on the art market during the colonial period.

10
Hyoeun Park“18 segi chos ŏn munin d ŭl ŭi hoehwa mojip hwaldong kwa hwadan [Literati Collectors and
Painters of the 18th Century in Joseon].” Misul sahak y ŏn’gu [Art History Studies], (2002), 39.

11
Ibid., 150.

12
Dr. D. J. Macgowan, “Recent Russian Archaic Researches Adjacent to Korea and Remarks on Korean
Stone Implements,” in The Korean Repository (January 1892), 27.

69

Collecting and Art Markets during the Colonial Period: The Commodification of
Artifacts/Art
With the annexation of Korea in 1910, the previous art atmosphere of Chos ŏn
literati collecting, art markets, and promotion of professional painter-artists seemed to
wane, or at least change. A different focus in collecting developed in Korea whose
origins lay not with any emulation of a literati culture, but with an exchange in
commodities, propelled by the continuous excavation of antiquities. As early as 1905,
during the Russo-Japanese War, excavations were already taking place around Kaes ŏng,
the former Kory ŏ capital, in search of Kory ŏ ware, for which there was already a demand
in Japan. King Kojong (r. 1863-1907) was shown a Kory ŏ celadon by Ito Hirobumi
(Resident-General 1905-1909), who indicated that the piece was from Kory ŏ. The king
replied that there was no such kind of ceramic in Korea. Ito could not reply that the piece
was excavated from the tombs, but when asked how much the piece was worth, he
answered that it was a little over 100,000 won. The king praised him for obtaining the
piece for so little.
13

Scholars pinpoint the decade between 1900 and 1910 as the beginnings of an
ancient antiques art market.
14
Exactly how this process of collecting emerged during the

13
Suhy ŏn Mok, “Ilcheha pakmulgwan ŭi hy ŏngs ŏng kwa k ŭ ŭimi [The Characteristics and Meaning of
Japanese Colonial Era Museums].” M.A. thesis, Seoul National University Graduate School], 2000, 26,
footnote 79. Although the original source has been attributed to Asakawa Takumi, the accuracy of the
anecdote remains unconfirmed; also found in Suy ŏng Hwang, Ilchegi munhwajae pihaeng charyo
[Damages to Cultural Treasures] (Seoul: Han’guk misul sahak hy ŏphoe [Korean Art History
Association], 1973), 106.

14
Sangy ŏp Kim, “Ilche kangch ŏm ki ŭi ko misul pum yutong kwa ky ŏngme [Circulation and Auction of
Antiques During the Period under the Rule of Japanese Imperialism]” in K ŭndae misul y ŏn’gu [Modern Art
Studies] (Seoul: Kuknip hy ŏndae misul kwan [National Museum of Contemporary Art], 2006), 151-172.
70

colonial period is difficult to say, but we know of the existence of antique art markets and,
although information is scarce, it is safe to surmise that there must have been a sizeable
number of collectors whose names and collections were not passed on to posterity. After
all, to be considered a “collector,” a person needed to possess only two antique items.
15

Hence, many of these objects may still be in private possession. As early as 1904, in a
book advising the Japanese people on how to “earn a buck” in Korea, Japanese author
Yoshikura Bonn ō [吉倉凡農] referred to finding old relics as a “profit-making
enterprise.” He advised his readers that the most valuable relics were from the Silla
period, and could be found in present-day Ky ŏngju. A four-lioned pagoda was sold
cheaply for 400,000 w ŏn, and Kory ŏ (918-1392) goods that were in high demand in
Japan sold for 10 w ŏn in Korea. These examples prompted Yoshikura to comment that
Koreans were not aware of the value of their art. Indeed, in only a few cases, it seems,
were Korean citizens aware of their ancient material history, much less its value.
Yoshikura then proceeded to instruct his readers to find a tomb, excavate it (!), pull out
the ceramics from the stone tombs, and sell them abroad for a significant profit.
16

Government-produced catalogs that describe the artifact potential in Korea greatly
fostered individual looting and smuggling, making it a lucrative livelihood for a number
of lower-class Japanese and even some Koreans.

15
Ibid., 153.

16
Yoshikura Bonn ō Kigy ō annai jitsuri no ch ōsen: ichimei ch ōsen kigy ō annai [An Entrepreneurial Guide
to the Practical Matters of Korea, a.k.a. Korea’s Entrepreneurial Guide]. Tokyo: Bunk ōd ō, 1904, 136-137.

71

As evidenced by the King Kojong anecdote and Yoshikura Bonn ō’s “manual” of
1904, it seems safe to say that the new type of collecting activities of ancient artifacts of
this period were initiated largely by the Japanese. In the 1910s, with the official
excavations of the Kaes ŏng (Kory ŏ) area, the Japanese demand for Kory ŏ ware reached
its peak, again prompting many illegal excavations as well. The actual “dirty work” of
illegal excavation was carried out mostly by lower-class Japanese who lived on the
Korean peninsula, who hired Koreans in turn to help.
17
The Japanese then sold the
excavated items to major collectors such as private wealthy Japanese and institutions
such as The Royal Yi Museum and Ch ōsen S ōtokufu museum.
18
By the 1920s, the
renewed attention of excavations at Lelang tombs in Py ŏngyang by the colonial
government temporarily shifted the focus from Kory ŏ ware to Lelang pieces, creating
another art market frenzy among collectors. Items from this area sold to Japan for two to
three times the price in Seoul. The demand for ancient art objects peaked in the 1930s,
and then, likely due to wartime mobilization,
19
the excavation of Kory ŏ ceramics was
discontinued, driving prices up significantly. Chos ŏn white porcelains and calligraphies

17
Ibid., 154.

18
Carey Park, “Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu pakmulgwan s ŏhwa k’ ŏlleksy ŏn kwa sujipga d ŭl [Collections and
Collectors of Paintings and Calligraphic Works at Government-General of Korea Headquarters Museum
(Museum of the Joseon Colonial Government)]” in K ŭndae misul y ŏn’gu [Modern Art Studies] (2006),
183-185.

19
Haengga Kw ŏn, “Chos ŏn my ŏnghwa ŭi palgy ŏn: O pongbin ŭi chos ŏn misulgwan chuch’oe kos ŏhwa
ch ŏn [Korean Famous Paintings and their Discovery: O Pongbin and the Art Exhibitions of Old
Paintings].” Paper presented at the Ilhan k ŭndae misulsa simpochi ŏm tosi wa sigak kongan – 1930 ny ŏndae
ŭi tonggy ŏng kwa s ŏul [Japan-Korea Modern Art History Symposium, Space of City and View – 1930s
Tokyo and Seoul]. Meichi misul hakhoe han’guk k ŭndae misulsa hakhoe [Meiji Art Studies Institute and
Korean Modern Art Institute], 2008 ny ŏn 10 w ŏl 18 il [October 18, 2008], 108-111.

72

became fashionable, and the viewing and appreciation of ancient art became increasingly
popular.
20

These trends were reflected in many of the art markets centralized in Ky ŏngs ŏng
(Seoul), which by the 1930s had expanded to Honmachi [本町通](present-day
Ch’ungmuro) and Meijicho [明治町] (present-day My ŏngdong) for a total of 12 antique
art stores. According to Akaboshi Goro, “In those days there were lots of [Japanese]
antique dealers in Keij ō. . . . In addition there were a great many Korean antique dealers
who mostly had junk shops and sideline businesses.”
21
Between the 1930s and 1940s,
more stores formed: 73 Japanese-owned and 107 Korean-owned. By the 1940s,
Japanese-owned stores numbered 83 and Korean-owned stores increased to a significant
296.
22
By this point, the stores and art markets expanded beyond their locations in Seoul
(former capital of Paekche) to Py ŏngyang (former capital of Koguyr ŏ) and Taegu (former
center of Kaya). The increase in the number of Korean-owned stores points to the
realization that that Korean antiques indeed possessed value – at least in terms of making
a profit. What was preserved, valued, and exchanged formed the basis of the history of
collecting.
23

20
Suy ŏng Hwang, Ilchegi munhwajae pihaeng charyo [Damages to Cultural Treasures] (Seoul: Han’guk
misul sahak hy ŏphoe [Korean Art History Association], 1973), 153; Kw ŏn, 108-111.

21
Akaboshi Gor ō and Nakamaru Heiichir ō, Ch ōsen no yakimono: ri ch ō [Korean Pottery: The
Yi Dynasty] (Kyoto: Tank ō shinsha, 1965), 26.

22
Kw ŏn, 108-111.

23
James Clifford, The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. 221.

73

In addition to the open markets, the lower-class Japanese (and those hired by
them) who conducted illegal excavations sold their retrieved goods at auctions, or open
markets.
24
Private gatherings such as the Ky ŏngs ŏng Art Club [Ky ŏngs ŏng misul
kurakbu 京城美術俱樂部], formed in 1922, served to provide background information
regarding an object and to justify its value to determine the object’s worth in an auction.
Over its twenty-year existence from 1922-1941, the club carried out a total of 260
auctions.
25
A similar service club existed for the Japanese collectors, the Ch ōsen Kogei
Kenkyukai in the 1930s. They held exhibitions at well-known department stores in Japan,
a phenomenon begun in 1907 by Mitsukoshi department store, and published notable
catalogs for sale.
26
This private organization was sponsored by wealthy collectors and
antiquity dealers who had businesses in both Tokyo and Seoul and produced
comprehensive exhibition catalogs on Lelang antiquities and Korean pottery, ranging
from the Paekche to Chos ŏn eras. Both clubs served to provide information, accurate or
not, promoting interest in and sales among avid collectors. Interestingly, the
“background information,” provided by these services and publications for potential
buyers was not unlike the art advisory role played by the middle men of the Chos ŏn

24
Kim, 151.

25
Ibid.,167.

26
T ōru Hatsuda, Paekhwaj ŏm – tosi munhwa ŭi k ŭndae [Department Stores – City Culture and Its
Modernity] (Seoul: Nonhy ŏng Publishers, 2003), 188-195.

74

dynasty. In both cases they provided the collectors an early form of provenance,
including historical genuineness, location, and previous ownership (if any).
27

The Collectors: Saviors, Promoters, or Businessmen?
So, who were these collectors? While details of the backgrounds and biographies
of actual collectors are scarce, the names of a few Korean and Japanese collectors have
remained in posterity, due to each person’s extravagant wealth, patronage, or influence
on art’s history. The best-known Korean collector, and by far the largest collector, was
Chŏn Hy ŏnpil (1906-1962). Undaunted by the high prices being commanded by Korean
antiques, Ch ŏn unhesitatingly paid the highest price for a piece that he believed to be
“worthy,” thus driving the market prices of other antiques upwards as well. In 1937, the
collection of the British diplomat, John Gatsby, who had been living in Japan, came into
Chŏn’s possession. Gatsby, who had amassed his collection during his appointment in
Japan, was not able to take his collection back home and upon asking around found an
eager purchaser in Ch ŏn. The purchase of the collection prompted Ch ŏn to build a
private facility in 1938, initially named Bohwagak [“house of treasures”] -- so-named by
friend and fellow collector, calligrapher, author, and political activist O Sechang (1864-
1953) -- to house his collection, which later was opened to the public as the Kans ŏng
Museum. A single son of a wealthy family and Waseda University law school graduate,
Chŏn had observed with dismay that the Japanese (both in Japan and Korea) owned many

27
Susan M. Pearce, On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition. (London:
Routledge Press, 1995), 297.

75

Korean works. To Ch ŏn, “Cultural assets are the soul of the nation,”
28
and so he avidly
bought, at times selling his own land (it is said that he died a penniless man), ancient art
objects to prevent the Japanese from gaining possession.
29
Not all collectors were as
patriotically-minded. Ch ŏn’s self-professed intention to “save” Korea’s ancient art
treasures” was well-known during his lifetime and after his death. At the time of the
1962 Cultural Properties Law, (the year of Ch ŏn’s death), a record eight items in Ch ŏn’s
collection were designated National Treasures, including:

No. 65 Celadon incense burner with unicorn-shaped lid [Figure 65]
Ch’ ŏngja kirin yugae hyangno

No. 66 Celadon kundika with inlaid willow, bamboo, lotus, reed, and
mandarin duck designs [Figure 66]
Ch’ ŏngja sanggam poryu sug ŭm mun chŏng by ŏng

No. 68 Celadon vase with inlaid crane and cloud designs [Figure 68]
Ch’ ŏngja sanggam unhak mun ŭi maeby ŏng

No. 70 The original book of the Korean alphabet [Figure 70]
Hunmin ch ŏngŭm

No. 71 Dictionary of correct Korean pronunciation [Figure 71]
Tong’guk ch ŏngun, Vol. 1 and 6

No. 72 Gilt-bronze Buddha triad with dated inscription [Figure 72]
K ŭmdong kyemi my ŏng samchonbul

No. 73 Gilt-bronze Buddha triad in miniature shrine [Figure 73]
K ŭmdong samchonbul gam

28
Chaehui Ko, Munhwajae pihwa [Secrets of the Cultural Properties], 2 vols. (Seoul:
Tolbaegae Publishers, 1996), 199.

29
Kw ŏn, 111-115, 123-126. Ch ŏn’s famed collection grew to include 11 National Treasures, including the
very famous Ch ŏnhak maeby ŏng, (Blue-green Celadon Vase with 1,000 Cranes, (a.k.a.,
Ch ŏngjasangamunhakmun maeby ŏng) National Treasure No. 68 which was bought from a Japanese.

76

No. 74 Celadon water dropper in the shape of a duck [Figure 74]
Ch’ ŏngja aphy ŏng suj ŏk

Presently, the collection boasts eleven National Treasures with the addition of NT 135
Sin Yunbok (1758-?) genre paintings [designated December 30, 1970], NT 149
Commentary on Chinese classics by Lu Zuqian (Dongrae s ŏnsaeng kyoch ŏng puksasang
ch ŏl) [designated July 10, 1973], and NT 270 Celadon wine pot in the shape of a monkey
(Ch’ ŏngja moja w ŏnsungi moyang y ŏnch ŏk) [designated after 1989]. Many of these
items have been repeatedly featured in international exhibitions, including Korea’s first
international exhibition after liberation in 1957.
Koreans O Pongbin and Lee His ŏp were also two prominent collectors in the
1930s with differing approaches to being a collector. O Pongbin was especially
interested in Chos ŏn paintings and established in 1929 his own Chos ŏn Art Museum
[Chos ŏn Misulgwan], which held exhibitions, bought and sold works, and framed
paintings. He received items from private collectors and displayed them. Each piece was
given a label – rare article, masterpiece, excellent piece, unusual article – to give a sense
of value. It is said that O Pongbin kept a detailed account of paintings bought and sold
and the price for which the piece was sold.
30
Lee His ŏp was responsible for holding four
exhibitions of Chos ŏn art in the Japanese cities of Osaka and Tokyo, thus helping to
instill a demand of Chos ŏn art in Japan. Lee was far more interested in running a
business than in acquiring art for any apparent sense of pride or patriotism. He was not
beyond selling what would today be considered kukpo-quality (National Treasure-level)

30
Kw ŏn, 108-111.

77

antiques, for example, to any Japanese collector who wanted them.
31
Whether these
Korean collectors were consciously aware that their actions were saving what would
become Korea’s treasures is not known, but it is certain that their collections and their
individual preferences and tastes have been preserved as the basis for many of Korea’s
museum collections and art history today.
The most well-known Japanese collector of the colonial period was Yanagi
Soetsu (Muneyoshi) (1889-1961), who is credited with establishing the folk-craft
movement, first in Korea and then in Japan. One version of the story claims that Yanagi
was introduced to Korean art in 1912 by his friends Bernard Leach and Tomimoto
Kenkichi, who themselves became ardent admirers after viewing some pieces at one of
the Tokyo colonial exposition.
32
Yanagi’s first trip to Korea in 1916 was life-altering,
wherein he encountered the ceramic arts of the Chos ŏn period that captured his own folk
art aesthetic. Popularly referred to as the mingei (folk-craft) movement, Yanagi initiated
and promulgated ordinary, functional, inexpensive, and regionally-inspired ceramic
wares handmade by nameless artisans. So serious was his following that his folk-art
aesthetic shifted Japanese collectors’ tastes and attention to Chos ŏn ceramics. The
relatively inexpensive nature of the ceramics combined with Yanagi’s passionate

31
As Kim Brandt writes, “It may not seem surprising, therefore, that Japanese aesthetes and collectors of
the early twentieth century were disposed to take an interest in the Korean ceramics rendered increasingly
accessible by Japanese colonization.” [Kim Brandt, Kingdom of Beauty: Mingei and the Politics of Folk Art
in Imperial Japan (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007), 12.]

32
Ibid., 11.

78

promotion made Chos ŏn ceramics the new “Kory ŏ ware.”
33
In fact, by the 1920s and
1930s, Chos ŏn ceramics became a popular and more affordable alternative to the now
overpriced Kory ŏ wares. Collector Akaboshi Gor ō wrote, “What now seem
astonishingly good pieces were lying around all over the place. Most of what I now own
I obtained in Keij ō (present-day Seoul). . . .”
34

Yanagi was a prolific writer and often published his activities and projects in the
moderate nationalist Korean newspaper, the Dong-a-Ilbo, founded and edited by
prominent moderate nationalists such as Kim S ŏngsu and Chang T ŏksu, as well as in the
Japanese art magazine, Shirakaba. These were then were then translated in made
available in English, Japanese, and Korean. The newspapers actively promoted Yanagi’s
ideas by publishing his articles on mingei (folk-craft) and his reviews, as well as
sponsoring his lectures and concerts.
35
Yanagi’s first essay on Korean art and aesthetics
was written in response to the March 1, 1919 movement out of his respect for Korean
culture.
36
Although some scholars regard Yanagi as being one of the first to help
establish the notion of Korean identity in art,
37
his views, while seemingly pro-Korean,
are interpreted ambiguously. He famously equated his characterization of Chos ŏn

33
Ibid., 12.

34
Gor ō and Nakamaru, 26.

35
Brandt (2007), 25.

36
Y ŏngp'il Kw ŏn, et al., Han’guk ŭi mi r ŭl dasi ilgn ŭnda [Re-Reading the Beauty of Korea] (P'aju:
Tolpaegae, 2005), 80.

37
Ibid., 80-87.

79

ceramics – “lonely,” “sad,” and “sorrowful” – with the Korean people, arguably creating
adjectives for the Korean nation’s colonial predicament, a critique that would later be
embraced by detractors who believed Yanagi’s crusade to have come about only because
of colonialism. His influence, in both Japan and Korea, in promoting the singularity of
Chos ŏn ceramics, however, is unquestionable as was witnessed in the prominence of
Chos ŏn ceramics (as well as Kory ŏ ceramics) in the 1962 National Treasures list.
According to Kim Brandt, “First in Japanese, then in English and Korean translations,
[Yanagi’s] articles on the importance of a proper recognition of the value and meaning of
certain Korean objects as Art circulated widely in both Japan and Korea.”
38
Not only did
Yanagi consider Chos ŏn ceramics to belong to the category of “art,”
39
thus driving the
prices for these pieces higher, but he believed the common admiration these ceramic
pieces inspired in both Korea and Japan improved international relations: “I believe it is
art, not science, that promotes congress between countries, and draws peoples
together . . . .”
40

The mention of Yanagi would be remiss without a reference to the Asakawa
brothers with whom Yanagi was well-acquainted. Asakawa Noritaka (1884-1964) had
lived in colonial Korea since 1913 and was a pioneering researcher of Korean ceramics,
surveying over 700 pottery sites from 1922 until 1946. In the second version of Yanagi’s
introduction to Korean art, it is purported that in 1914 Asakawa gave Yanagi a small

38
Brandt (2007), 22.

39
Ibid., 29.

40
Ibid., 21-22.

80

Chos ŏn jar with an “autumn grass style” design that ignited Yanagi’s passion for Korean
ceramics.
41
Asakawa’s brother, Asakawa Takume (1891-1931), was also a connoisseur
and avid collector of Korean arts and crafts and was chosen by Yanagi as his chief
associate of the newly-built Korean Folk Museum.
42
Together, the brothers’ intense
enthusiasm for Kory ŏ celadons and Chos ŏn punch’ ŏng ware,
43
in particular, helped spur
other collectors’ obsessions with Korean ceramics. These Japanese collectors can only
be named here as little information is available about their backgrounds: Amari Motaru;
Ikeuchi Torakichi; Yoshida Kenjiyo; Asami Rintaro; Asagawa Hakkyo; Ukimura
Suchiyo; Terauchi Masatake; and Otani Gozui, to name a few.

Chapter Conclusion
It can be argued that the legacy of Chos ŏn collecting, its habits and activities
continued in the colonial period. At the very least, the atmosphere of collecting at the
end of the dynasty allowed the colonial activities to be somewhat familiar. A major
difference, however, were the types of commodities being valued, sold, and exchanged.
Chos ŏn collecting was a social practice esteemed by the elite literati and bought into
reality by the emerging wealthy chungin. The Japanese colonial government was behind

41
Yuko Kikuchi, Japanese Modernization and Mingei Theory: Cultural Nationalism and Oriental
Orientalism, (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), 126.

42
Brandt (2007), 42.

43
Victor Rienacker, “Korean Art” Apollo 42 (October 1945): 243-245; 44 (August 1946): 43-45; 44
(September 1946): 63-66 in Hyung Il Pai, “The Colonial Origins of Korea’s Collected Past” in Nationalism
and the Construction of Korean Identity, ed. Hyung Il Pai and Timothy R. Tangherlini, (Berkeley:
University of California, Institute of East Asian Studies, 1998), 17.

81

the systematic collecting of artifacts that took place on the Korean peninsula. Once the
colonial excavations were well under way, collecting and its related economic
developments of the art market, as well as a subsequent increase in looting and
smuggling
44
of artifacts, served to bestow value on the artifacts that were being found
and even created a demand for certain artifacts just as paintings and ceramics were
popular prior to the colonial period. According to Georg Simmel in The Philosophy of
Money (1907/1978), the concept of money in a budding capitalist economy ultimately
ends up assigning value to all phenomena in life, yet value itself is never an inherent
property of objects but is a judgment made about them by subjects.
45
In this process,
these excavated objects quickly become commodities within a growing system of
demand, assigned value, and commercial exchange already evidenced in the Chos ŏn
dynasty. In other words, Korea and Japan’s nascent modernizing monetary systems
fostered the commodification of these ancient artifacts. Paul Wood defines
commodification as how an object is recognized in its society and what the object

44
The subject of looting and smuggling, on par with the significance of the more above-board activities of
collecting and art markets, will not be discussed in greater detail here, except to confirm their existence.
While many popular books [Suy ŏng Hwang, Ilchegi munhwajae pihaeng charyo [Damages to Cultural
Treasures] (Seoul: Han’guk misul sahak hy ŏphoe [Korean Art History Association], 1973); Kwangpyo Lee,
Kukpo iyagi [The Story of National Treasures] (Seoul: Random House Joongang, 2005); Dalsu Kim, Ilbon
sok ŭi han’guk munhwa yuch ŏk ŭl ch’ajas ŏ [Finding Korean Cultural Treasures in Japan] (Seoul:
Daew ŏnsa Publishers, 1997); Chaehui Ko, Munhwajae pihwa [Secrets of the Cultural Properties], 2 vols.
(Seoul: Tolbaegae Publishers, 1996)] have recently been published with stories of Korean artifacts taken to
Japan (of which there is a significant number), clandestine sales, and international disputes, the origins of
these sources are, as yet, unconfirmed or unreliable. This is not to deny that these events occurred; indeed,
the collecting activities, publications of catalogs, and museum exhibitions inadvertently fostered these
profitable exploits. In this chapter, however, I have chosen to focus on what has been documented and is
relevant to the larger issue of establishing Korea’s field of art history and its canon.

45
Georg Simmel, The Philosophy of Money, trans. Tom Bottomore and David Frisby, ed. David Frisby
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, 1978; reprint, third enlarged edition, London: Routledge
Press, 2004), 119-122.

82

means.
46
Figuratively speaking, then, it seems that collecting activities were rapidly
overtaken by market forces of the 20
th
century.
Still, it cannot be emphasized enough how little is known regarding the collectors
and the art markets during this period – areas in need of more scholarship. From what
little is known here, by the early twentieth century, “culture” was slowly being identified
and actively nurtured by the collectors and the art markets, with archaic objects
increasingly becoming recognized as “art.” As expressed by Christine Guth, “[M]arket
forces, both shaped by and reflected in the activities of art dealers and collectors, also
played a major role in determining what came to be elevated to the status of Art with a
capital ‘A’.
47
Attaining this label of art allowed Korean objects to be equated on an
aesthetic and moral scale with great masterpieces.
48
The emergence of collectors,
development of art markets, auctions, “middle-men,” brokers, and looters and smugglers
not only contributed to and grew out of the emerging recognition of these archaeological
artifacts as art, they also represented the rare individual component often missed among
the powers of the state and museums. In time, collecting for some Koreans became an
expensive, nearly “heroic,” gesture to prevent Korea’s treasures from leaving the country.
For others, it was a means to an end in the atmosphere of colonialism. All these factors
put together combined with the economic component of artifact-as-commodity fostered a

46
Paul Wood, “Commodity,” in Critical Terms for Art History, ed., Robert S. Nelson and Richard Shiff
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 257.

47
Christine Guth, “Some Reflections on the Formation of the Meiji Artistic Canon, “ in New Directions in
the Study of Meiji Japan, ed., Helen Hardacre and Adam L. Kern (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 40.

48
Clifford, 235.

83

new-found awareness of the art objects which served to enhance the value and
recognition of Korea’s antiques. This in turn paved the way for future National Treasures
that had been previously unknown to the public to enter the domain of daily life. At the
same time, to be sure, the colonial government’s massive excavations were quickly in
need of a storehouse for their deliberately orchestrated display – the museums. It is this
modern institution that is the subject of the next chapter.

84

Chapter 3: Museums

Chapter Introduction: Storage – The Earliest Korean Museums?
While there exist few cases that point to the saving and storing mentality of the
royal family in early Korea, such storage rooms, which were known to have assigned
names are highly unlikely to have served as museums or rooms of display. In many of
the ancient capital cities, based on evidence found in tombs and buildings, items made of
gold, iron, and bronze were documented to be of value as early as the Bronze Age (2500
B.C.). Efforts made to specially store them or even display them is unknown. The Three
Kingdoms period, which includes the ancient periods of Kogury ŏ, Silla, and Paekche,
show some evidence of storage rooms used by the royal family: in the Silla period, the
storage room was named Ch’ ŏnchongo [天尊厙] and Kwipigo [貴妃厙], and in the
Paekche period, the storage room was named Imyugak [臨流閣]. During the Unified
Silla period, the last king, King Ky ŏngsun (r. 927-935), was known to have had a storage
room called Namgo [南厙] in which was stored a jade belt and another belt that was
given as a gift to Kory ŏ King T’aejo (r. 1392-1398) and kept in a mulchang [物藏].
Annals such as the Kory ŏsa [The History of Kory ŏ] and recorded trips to Korea by a
Song dynasty traveler [Kory ŏ doky ŏng E: Kory ŏ Picture Album] mention the
establishment of buildings such as the Ch’ ŏnchanggak [天章閣] in 1117 A.D., the 12
th

year of King Yechong’s rule (r.1105-1122 A.D.), the Bomungak [寶文閣] ,and the
85

Chŏngyŏngak [淸燕閣] for the preservation of S ŏng dynasty (420-479 A.D.) calligraphy
and paintings as well as other valuable items.
1
Other storage rooms were known to be
used for books. Given the descriptions of the contents, these rooms or storage units may
have been used to publicly or even privately display the wares within; however, without
these critical modern characteristics of display and conscientious collecting, these early
examples fall outside the concept of the modern museum.

Early Korean World’s Fair Participation and the Imperial Museum
Despite the lack of evidence of any “cabinet of curiosities” or “treasure troves,” as
early, or as late, as 1893, the Korean government participated in World’s Fairs and
expositions. Under the new imperial government of Korea in 1897, Emperor Kojong sent
Korean scholars to Japan to learn more about modern institutions and system including
museums. Through them, he learned that Japanese museums, such as the National
Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo (originally opened as the Ministry of Education
Museum in October 1871)
2
were based on those of the U.S. and England. Apparently
two of the emperor’s advisors held opposing views on the matter. Advisor Min
Chongmuk (1856-1916) did not understand how museums were necessary or relevant.
Prime Minister Pak Yonghyo on the other hand urged Emperor Kojong (r.1864-1907) to

1
Kuknip chungang pakmulgwan [National Museum of Korea], Kuknip chungang pakmulgwan 60 ny ŏn
1945-2005 [Sixty Years of the National Museum of Korea] (Seoul: Kuknip chungang pakmulgwan
[National Museum of Korea], 2006), 407.

2
National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo, accessed at
http://read.jst.go.jp/public/cs_kkn_004EventAction.do?action5=event&lang_act5=E&kcd1_act5=92020000
00&judge_act5=2 on February 2010.

86

build a museum for Korea. The emperor instead found the idea of Korea’s participation
in these world exhibits far more palatable than the concept of creating and maintaining a
museum, or pakmulgwan
3
An exposition was perceived as simply a show of objects for
a limited time. So, in 1893, the Koreans were wholly unprepared for the “spectacle” that
was the Chicago World’s Fair. Allotted the smallest exhibition space of 32,107 square
feet, as compared with China (228,214 square feet) and Japan (1,412,214 square feet), the
Koreans had no idea of the significance and political one-upsmanship that was involved
in presenting at the exhibition. This lack of awareness was reflected in the objects they
chose to display: palanquins (royal chairs), a cupboard, tableware, a Korean chess board,
a small bronze table/tray, indoor house shoes, an incense burner, ceramics, an
embroidered folding wall panel, military uniforms, and clothing. The Koreans simply put
out a few objects, which to passersby appeared “primitive.” While showcasing aspects of
Korea’s agriculture, horticulture, marine products, minerals, transportation systems,
metal techniques, and forest products, other more “modern” aspects such as machinery,
electricity, and the museum were not represented. Items that might have been considered
“art” at the time, such as paintings, were not displayed, but rather many food and grain
items were exhibited. In contrast, the Japanese government invested 63,000 yen to
advertise to the world various metalworks, paintings, and most notably, the replica of the

3
A pakmulgwan is commonly accepted to be a museum of history, humanity, archaeology, folk arts, fine
arts, animals, vegetation, minerals, science, technical skill, and industry materials gathered and presented
for cultural enlightenment. It was first coined in the late 19
th
century Japanese book, Seiy ō jih ō [西洋事情
The Western Situation] by Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835-1901). A misulgwan is commonly accepted to be a
museum of painting, sculpture, metal works, architecture, photos, also for culture and education. Both
terms are translated as “museum.” [Hongnam Kim and Youngna Kim, “Misul saw a misul kwan [Art
History and Museums]” Misul sahak [Art History Studies] 6 (1992), 24].

87

H ō- ō-den Pavilion, or Phoenix Pavilion, originally built in the 11
th
century.
4
It was
thought that perhaps the Koreans misunderstood the “purpose” of a world exposition and
thus possessed different conceptions of what it meant at that time to the other countries to
display their country’s goods at this event.
5
Mok Suhyŏn has estimated that the value of
all the items presented may have been worth $1,140.
6
The Secretary of the US Treasury,
however, noted in letters that the value could not have been more than $506.
7
Apparently
embarrassed at how their exhibition compared with those of other countries, the Koreans,
for the next 1889 Paris exposition, had an exhibition space built to imitate a royal
audience chamber covered with kiwa, Korean roof tiles, modeled after Ky ŏngbokkung
Palace’s (景福宮)] K ŭnj ŏngj ŏn Hall (勤政殿)]. The objects of display, all commissioned
by the government, included a mother-of-pearl cabinet, a folding screen, gilt-bronze
items, a gilded wooden Buddha figure, a few paintings, and books. While considered an
“improvement,” on December 16, 1900, Le Petit Journal commented that the French
perceived Korea to be a country not only located between China and Japan
geographically but also found within the milieu of China and Japan culturally.
8

4
Youngna Kim, “’Pakramhoe’ ran ŭn ch ŏnsi konggan 1893 ny ŏn sikago manguk pakramhoe wa
chos ŏn kwan ch ŏnsi” ['Universal Exposition' as an Exhibitionary Space: Korean Exhibition at the 1893
World Columbian Exposition, Chicago.” S ŏyang misul sahakhoe nonmun chip [Collection of Papers on
Western Art History Studies] 13 (2000): 81-82.

5
Ibid., 89.

6
Suhy ŏn Mok, “Ilcheha pakmulgwan ŭi hy ŏngs ŏng kwa k ŭ ŭimi [The Characteristics and Meaning of
Japanese Colonial Era Museums]” (M.A. thesis, Seoul National University Graduate School], 2000), 11.

7
“Letters from the Secretary of the Treasury,” in Chicago Historical Society Archive (March 26, 1894), 27
and 40.

8
Kim, 89-90, 95.
88

It was around this time, in the late 19
th
century, that the Korean term “misul”
[美術] appeared, derived from the Japanese term bijutsu and translated as “fine arts.”
The Japanese in turn had coined the word bijutsu as a result of their growing need for a
word equivalent to the English term “fine arts,” due to their increasing involvement in
world expositions.
9
The introduction of misul is significant. Before the Japanese
colonizers arrived, the Koreans had begun developing their own ideas about fine arts, as
seen in their presentations at the two world’s fairs of 1893 and 1900. The concept of fine
arts held by the Korean exhibit organizers of the world’s fairs may have appeared
inadequate juxtaposed to the Japanese and Chinese displays and certainly differed from
those of their western counterparts, but it was their own. These fledgling ideas would
soon be interrupted by colonization, a break for which we have visual evidence. With the
arrival of the term “misul,” a distinction was beginning to be recognized between mere
object and fine art, not only by the exposition organizers, but also by the Korean public
who were concurrently witnessing the establishment of Korea’s first modern museum.
Museums and expositions continued to play a pivotal role in the collecting
activities during the colonial period, providing the colonial government a rationale for its
ongoing excavation projects. Though mandated by the government, the establishment in
Korea of museums and participation in expositions shared a different story of evolution
than that of its Western counterparts. And while the artifacts were new to Koreans, the

9
Ibid., 75-111.

89

exhibits were undoubtedly the beginnings of a visual representation of their nation, as
well as an important step in considering these ancient artifacts as “works of art.”
To the colonial government, the establishment of museums constituted a part of
Japan’s efforts to “civilize” their colony, as the Europeans had “civilized” their own.
“European expansion,” writes Osterhammel, “has been stylized grandiosely as the
fulfillment of a universal mission: as a contribution to a divine plan for the salvation of
the pagans, as a secular mandate to ‘civilize’ the ‘barbarians’ or ‘savages,’ as a ‘white
man’s burden’ that he was privileged to carry, etc. . . . American and Japanese
colonialism also made full use of this kind of missionary rhetoric.”
10
In like manner, the
Japanese colonial government imposed their own version of “Orientalism” on the
“inferior” Koreans. The museum was the ideal space to solidify their imperialist intent.
The Japanese had already begun to establish their own museums only a few years
earlier – first in 1871. Thus, the concept of the museum brought to Korea was Western-
derived but with Japanese interpretations. The collections of early Western museums
evolved as a result of donations from royal patrons all over Europe, as well as wealthy
collectors with particular collecting hobbies or a thirst for acquisition and ownership.
What started out humbly as the “cabinet of curiosities” in the home turned into, with the
birth of the concept of nation states in the 19
th
century, national collections housed in
architectural edifices. In Korea, by contrast, artifacts from particular locales were sought
by the colonial power, were housed in museums erected by the colonial government to

10
Jürgen Osterhammel, Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers,
1995), 16.

90

reinterpret the resulting finds to suit their purposes as shall be demonstrated later in this
chapter.
From outward appearances, however, Korea’s first museum looked like a gift
rather than an imposition. Shortly after Korea was placed under the Protectorate of Japan
in 1905, the royal family (prompted by the infamous Hague incident of 1907) was moved
to Ch’angd ŏkkung Palace from Ky ŏngbokkung Palace. In the same year, 1907,
Resident-General Ito Hirobumi, Prime Minister Lee Wanyong, and Japanese Minister of
Interior Komiyami Homasuka
11
arranged to have an arboretum, animal zoo, and museum
constructed to “distract [the royal family] from what was going on in the country,” and to
“provide something interesting in the new palace for the amusement of His Majesty so
that he might find a new pleasure in life.”
12
While the former emperor Kojong’s son,
Emperor Sunjong, was purportedly very pleased, the co-existence of such an amusement
park in Ch’anggy ŏnggung Palace, which was thereafter renamed Ch’anggy ŏngw ŏn
Palace [昌慶苑] in 1911, after the amusement park addition, was believed to be
humiliating to many Korean citizens and some members of the royal family.
13

The museum was placed under the jurisdiction of the Royal Family Affairs
Department [宮內府] of the Ŏw ŏn samuguk [御苑事務局] in September 1908 and

11
National Museum of Korea (2006), 411.

12
Yi Household Museum Collection, Vol. 1, Taisho 1 (1911) referred to in David I. Steinberg, “The
National Museum of the Republic of Korea,” in Selected Studies in Korean Art, ed. RAS Transactions Vol.
XLIV (Seoul: Sahm-bo Publishing Corporation, 1968), 12.

13
Int ŏk Kim, Sikminchi sidae k ŭndae konggan kuknip pakmulgwan [The National Museum as a Modern
Space During the Colonial Era] (Seoul: Institute of National Studies, 2007), 30.

91

opened to the public on November 1, 1909
14
in a traditional Korean-style architecture
within the grounds of Ch’anggy ŏnggung Palace. Although initially named the Imperial
Museum [皇室博物館 K: Hwangsil bakmulgwan], it was referred to in Korean daily
newspapers, Daehan minbo and Daehan maeil sinbo among others, by differing names
such as the “pakmulgwan (museum),” and “ ŏw ŏn pakmulgwan (royal museum),” among
others. Such indecisiveness suggests first that Koreans (as evidenced by the Korean
newspapers) were uncomfortable or unsure how a museum was to be perceived. The
Imperial Museum name was short-lived, however. First, in June 1910, the museum
became officially the Imperial Museum and then, with the official annexation of Korea in
August 1910, the museum was promptly renamed the Royal Yi Family Household
Museum [李王家博物館] in 1911. This is a moniker that many scholars feel could only
have been applied by the Japanese government, citing its demeaning title that demoted
the previous imperiality of the title to a “Household Museum” and limited the dynastic
reference to only the surname, “Yi.” The collection, put together by the museum
personnel, was based on purchased goods (some allegedly found in the black market),
15

dojagi (ceramic) factories, and royal family heirlooms.
16
By December 1912, there were
12, 230 items in the Yi museum.
17
Still, the Royal Yi Family Household Museum was

14
Int ŏk Kim, 17.

15
Suhy ŏn Mok “1930 ny ŏndae ŭi ky ŏngs ŏng ŭi ch ŏnsi konggan [Ky ŏngs ŏng Exhibition Space in 1930s],”
personal paper, 2.

16
Sunja Lee, “Ilche kangch ŏmgi koj ŏk chosa ŏp y ŏn’gu [A Study of Koj ŏk Investigations During the
Japanese Colonial Period].” Ph.D. diss., Sookmyung Womens’ University, 2007), 174.

17
Suhy ŏn Mok, “Ilcheha pakmulgwan ŭi hy ŏngs ŏng kwa k ŭ ŭimi [The Characteristics and
92

not a fully-fledged museum but more of a compilation of objects without a clear intention
or purpose. From 1912 to 1938, the only Korean person to be employed by the museum
was a photographer named Lee Haes ŏn (1905-1983) who in 1932 was a kwalli wiw ŏn
(administrative member, 관리위원) handling ancient Korean works of art and in 1934
was an uny ŏng wiw ŏn (managing member, 운영위원) at T ŏksugung Palace.
18

By 1938, space constraints and physical difficulties in management due to the
layout of the traditional architecture of Ch’anggy ŏnggung Palace
19
forced the Royal Yi
Family Household Museum to be relocated to S ŏkj ŏj ŏn Hall [石造殿], the Western-style
building located within the T ŏksugung Palace grounds. This particular building, erected
by King Kojong and had been used by the colonial government to exhibit works from
Japan as the Royal Yi Family Art Gallery since 1933.
20
Now, the space would be used
for both Japanese art and traditional Korean art. At the time of its move to T ŏksugung
Palace, the Royal Yi Family Household Museum possessed 18,807 items in its collection,
which was decreased to 11,019 that same year. This decrease was attributed to the
accompanying change in the reference term for “museum” from pakmulgwan to
misulgwan. This change to misulgwan implied that the objects in the new museum’s
collection were more on par with the status of “fine arts.” The selection of which objects
would qualify as fine art was in the hands of the Japanese museum personnel until March

Meaning of Japanese Colonial Era Museums].” (M.A. thesis, Seoul National University Graduate School,
2000), 24.

18
National Museum of Korea (2006), 417.

19
Ibid., 421.

20
Suhy ŏn Mok, (2000), 36, footnote 109.
93

1, 1946, when the Royal Yi Household Museum re-opened as the T ŏksugung Museum
after liberation in 1945.

The Government-General Korean Products Exhibition of 1915
[始政五年記念朝鮮物産共進會] and the Establishment of the Government-General
Museum
After five years, the colonial government produced its own version of an
exposition – The Government-General Korean Products Exhibition of 1915
[始政五年記念朝鮮物産共進會], which ran from September 15 to October 31, 1915,
21

at Ky ŏngbokkung Palace, one year before the enactment of Korea’s first official cultural
properties protection law of 1916. Over the course of fifty days, 1.16 million people
attended the exposition.
22
To have the royal family’s original household, the
Ky ŏngbokkung Palace, vacated to host an exposition to the public was even more of a
humiliation to the Koreans than to have an amusement park in Ch’anggyungkung Palace.
Within the context of the exposition, the Ky ŏngbokkung Palace setting and exposition
was one of contrast – the old tradition versus the newest developments. Ch’oe S ŏkyŏng
described the event as a moment when Ky ŏngbokkung Palace lost its distinction as a
royal palace and became a tourist attraction.
23

21
S ŏky ŏng Ch’oe, “Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu pakmulgwan ŭi ch’ulhy ŏn kwa ‘silminjij ŏk kihoek’”
[The Colonial Opportunity in the Formation of the Government-General Museum].” Hos ŏsahak 27 (1999):
109.

22
Int ŏk Kim, 42.

23
S ŏky ŏng Ch’oe, Han’guk k ŭndae ŭi pakramhoe - pakmulgwan [The Exhibitions and Museums in
94

The first of its kind in Korea, the exposition was used by the colonial government
officials to demonstrate to themselves, to Koreans, and to the world, Korea’s progress
under Japanese colonial rule. The Japanese government fully recognized the global,
industrial, and cultural playground that was the exposition: Japanese, Chinese, and
Korean products were displayed side by side.
24
As a result, the presentation of Korean
Buddhist items was particularly emphasized, over 30% of the objects, to easily show
similarities to Japanese Buddhist works and to create the impression that Korea was
predominantly a Buddhist country rather than a Confucian one.
25

But despite these intentions, as Kal Hong proposes, the 1915 Korean exhibition
actually served to reinforce a sense of Korean nationhood.
26
In other words, they, as
Koreans, be able to recognize that the objects exhibited before them were something their
people had accomplished. In fact, Hong proposes, under the veil of the exhibition,
Koreans were shown their culture on a large scale for the first time.
27
The presentation
of the Korean antiques and objects within the physical confines of a museum now
strongly suggested to the viewing public that these pieces were now to be seen as “works
of art” as opposed to mere ancient objects.

Modern Korea] (Seoul: S ŏky ŏng Munhwasa Publishers, 2001), 13-17.

24
Int ŏk Kim, 40.

25
S ŏky ŏng Ch’oe (1999), 116.

26
Kal Hong, “The Presence of the Past: Exhibitions, Memories and National Identities in Colonial and
Postcolonial Korea and Japan” (Ph. D. diss., SUNY Binghamton, 2003), 114-115.

27
Ibid., 199.

95

The Museum Era
A similar dynamic between the colonizers’ intended message and a growth in
identity awareness by the colonized is evident in the museum that grew out of this exhibit.
Even during the preparations, one building for the exposition was changed into the
permanent museum, and only one month after the closing of the exposition, on December
1, 1915, the Government-General Museum [朝鮮總督府博物館 Ch ōsen S ōtokufu
Hakubutsukan] was officially opened on Ky ŏngbokkung Palace grounds with 1,302
Korean pieces.
28
Having earlier described the Royal Yi Family Household Museum as
merely a “compilation of things,” Mok Suhy ŏn now declared the Government-General
Museum as the first “real” museum in Korea due to its organization of objects and
apparent preparedness of display.
29
The opening collection, including Japanese and
Chinese pieces, consisted of 13,375 pieces, with Korean items largely acquired from
Sekino Tadashi’s excavations, collected items, and items bought or received privately as
discussed in the previous chapter, and Chinese items from the Han and Tang dynasties.
The presentation was “well-organized” and “amply prepared” within a six-room, two-
story Western-style building.
30
Occupying nearly 1.5 million square feet, the museum
was divided into two symmetrical floors connected towards the back by stairs with a

28
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, Ch ōsen s ōtokufu shisei nenp ō [The Yearly Records of the Government-General of
Ch ōsen]. Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Ch ōsen], 1926-1938, 560; Suhy ŏn Mok,
( 2000), 37 and 44.

29
Suhy ŏn Mok, Ch ōsen s ōtokufu shisei nenp ō [The Yearly Records of the Government-General of
Ch ōsen]. Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Ch ōsen], 1926-1938 (2000): 42.

30
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu (1926-38), 560.

96

main hall, two smaller side halls, and two very small storage rooms on each floor. The
display was purposely ordered and presented according to Western scientific principles.
31

In other words, based on the excavations results thus far, each object was
chronologically ordered and displayed according to original time period and medium
with strong comparative resonances with the ancient arts of Japan. Historical contextual
information, such as where the object was found with site drawings and maps, were
provided when possible. Descriptions of the items displayed, while not according to
present-day standards, have been provided by the first volume of the Bulletin of the
Government-General Museum of Ch ōsen [博物館報 Hakubutsukan h ō)] (April 1926).
These are listed below, despite their lack of specificity, to provide a glimpse of the kinds
of objects the government deemed useful to portray to the public:
32

First Floor
Room 1 - The main hall and initial point of entry was entirely
arranged with Buddhist relics, Buddhist triads, rock-carved triads,
an imitation of the S ŏkkuram Buddha, and gilt-bronze triads,
focusing on the Silla, Unified Silla, and Kory ŏ periods.

Room 2 - Directly to the right of the main hall, this room included
objects from the Three Kingdoms, Unified Silla, and Kaya periods.
This display, arranged in ten glass cabinets, included: items
excavated from the Kumyongch’ong Tomb (Gold Bell Tomb);
items from the Ongwan jar coffin tomb; gilt-bronze shoes, a big
knife, a small knife, and a pot; Kaya period goods, including
earthenware, pottery, and a corpse with personal belongings; other
bronze goods, including weapons and horse accessories; incense
burners like the phoenix incense burner, a pillow, a sarira with
crucible, and a wall relief.

31
Sunja Lee, 178.

32
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu Hakubutsukan, Hakubutstukan h ō [Bulletin of the Government-General Museum of
Ch ōsen] 1 no. 1 (April 1926), 5-12.

97

Room 3 - Located directly to the left of the main hall, this room
contained items solely dating from the Kory ŏ and Chos ŏn periods
arranged in ten glass cabinets: porcelain, bowls with inlay designs,
funerary and stationary goods, copper and silver food utensils,
mother-of pearl inlay objects, and lacquerware.

Second Floor
Room 4 - Located directly to the left of the upper-floor main hall,
the room featured objects from the Lelang commanderies region
included lacquerware, combs, horse fittings, green jade, porcelain,
ironworks, brick wall items, bronze implements, and silk.

Room 5 - The main room on the second floor contained a
miscellaneous group of objects displayed along the sides of the hall,
particularly highlighting the object affinities to those of China and
Japan: stoneware, earthenware, bone and antler ware, stone knives,
bronze knife and bronze sheath, bronze mirrors, and woodblock
ink block printing accoutrements.

Room 6 - This room directly to the left of the main hall on the
second floor featured paintings displayed in six pairs of two cases:
Koguryŏ wall paintings, Pus ŏksa temple wall paintings, Kory ŏ
paintings, Yi (Chos ŏn) paintings, and books.
33

Many of the displays in each room heavily emphasized the comparative aspects of
the objects with those of China and Japan. The main hall itself was entirely devoted to
Buddhist sculpture. Once again, as with the Royal Yi Household Museum, the intended
message for the viewer was one that depicted Korea as a predominantly Buddhist country
which shared strong stylistic affinities with China and Japan. Other Chinese influences
that were presented included those from the Northern and Southern Dynasties (420-589
A.D.) and from the early Tang (618-907A.D.).

33
Ibid., 1, 5-12.

98

With the majority of the museum staff being placed by the colonial government,
the organization of display seemed clearly intended that “(t)hrough the persistent
production of certain images and the suppression of others, and through controlling the
way images are viewed or artifacts are preserved, visual representations . . . be used to
produce a view of the nation’s history.”
34
The assumption was that looking alone,
learning through visual means, was more effective than learning though scholarly works,
especially for those that had not had the benefit of lengthy schooling.
35
The presentation
put before the visitor, then, was of a Korea overshadowed by its Chinese and Japanese
neighbors. In short, since history had proven its undeniable dependence on others, Korea
should accept its current colonial situation.
The museum staff, until Korea’s liberation in 1945, was also responsible for
excavation planning, old architectural repairs, collection purchasing, publication of new
finds, museum displays (museum labels were also available in English), tourist guides for
foreigners, and artifact protection.
36
The museum committees like the koseki chosa
ininkai, oversaw the decision-making process of determining which items were to be
collected for publications, including the Chosen Koseki Zufu (15 volumes), the Koseki
Chosa H ōkoku (16 volumes), the Koseki Chosa Tokubetsu H ōkoku (7 large volumes), and

34
Eileen Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture, (New York: Routledge
Press, 2000), 25.

35
Ibid., 14.

36
Sunja Lee, 190-200.

99

the Chosen Koseki H ōmotsu Mokuroku (2 volumes), just to list a few.
37
The committees
responsible for these important duties were mostly composed of Japanese bureaucrats and
scholars. The koseki ch ōsa ininkai, which was active from 1922-1938, had show that
only four Koreans (two more in addition to the two mentioned in Chapter 1) out of a total
36 members served as committee members: writer Ch’oe Nams ŏn [notable author of
Chos ŏn ui koj ŏk] and Yi N ŭnghwa, and artist Kim Yongjin (1878-1968) and Kim
Daewoo (1900-1977).
38

Yet, in the end, how successful was the museum in establishing opinion? To
enhance interest in the museum’s activities, the Government-General of Korea produced
a series of seventeen volumes on objects owned by the museum. Entitled Museum
Exhibits Illustrated [J: 博物館陳列品圖鑑], 1918-1943, these attractive publications
were put together in the hopes of not only kindling more interest in the public, but also of
injecting interest within the colonial government to secure more funds.
39
In fact, the
attendance records at the Government-General Museum for the years 1926-1941, broken
down in terms of Japanese, Korean, and foreigner attendance reveal a trend [Table 6
below]. Note that only in the initial year, and then by 1937, the number of Korean
visitors began to surpass those of the Japanese living in Korea, demonstrating a rising
interest and awareness by Koreans of visual objects from their history.

37
Suhy ŏn Mok, (2000), 53-57.

38
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, Ch ōsen h ōmotsu koseki zuroku [Plates of Korean treasures and historic remains]
(Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, 1938), 59-62.

39
David I. Steinberg, “The National Museum of the Republic of Korea,” in Selected Studies in Korean Art
(Seoul: Sahm-bo Publishing Corporation, 1968), 14.

100

Table 6. Visitor Attendance at the Government-General (Ch ōsen S ōtokufu)
Museum (1926 -1941)
Showa 1 (1926) 60,120 total [Japanese in Korea (J) 25,648; Koreans (K) 32,471;
foreigners (F) 2,006]
Showa 2 (1927) 44,716 total [J 28,129; K 15,280; F 1,307]
Showa 3 (1928) 50,388 total [J 30,300; K 18,859; F 1,220]
Showa 4 (1929) 46,639 total [J 28,935; K 16,349; F 1,355]
Showa 5 (1930) 36,604 total [J 25,787; K 9,304; F 1,513]
Showa 6 (1931) 36,142 total [J 20,763; K 13,980; F 1,399]
Showa 7 (1932) 49,742 total [J 37,966; K 11,131; F 645]
Showa 8 (1933) 41,371 total [J 26,099; K 14,577; F 695]
Showa 9 (1934) 49,465 total [J 28,523; K 19,342; F 1,600]
Showa 10 (1935) N/A
Showa 11 (1936) 63,001 total [J 32,392; K 28,829; F 1,890]
Showa 12 (1937) 63,492 total [J 30,172; K 30,986; F 2,334]
Showa 13 (1938) 85,865 total [J 34,140; K 50,875; F 850]
Showa 14 (1939) 104,322 total [breakdown N/A]
Showa 15 (1940) 145,393 total [breakdown N/A]
Showa 16 (1941) 85,366 total [breakdown N/A]
40

40
Seiky ū gakkai [Seiky ū Academic Association], Seiky ū gakuso dai 23 g ō [Seiky ū Journal, No. 23]”
(Keij ō: Seiky ū gakukai [Seiky ū Academic Association], 1936), 472.

101

Until 1921, museums
41
were directly under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Education and Religion [朝鮮總督府學務局宗敎課] of the Government-General,
making the Government-General Museum a direct part of the political administration
rather than an independent cultural organization. The reasoning for this arrangement can
be found in the words of Benedict Anderson: “… so all modern museums were seen as a
necessary part of the apparatus for cataloging and analyzing the constituents of that
empire, while symbolizing the colonizers contribution to the development and progress of
their subjects.”
42
The active excavation efforts of the government to collect these
artifacts created an illusion that these pieces, which were taken out of their individual
contexts and decontextualized, now represented the abstract whole of Korean skilled
production. This process allowed full manipulation by the colonial government. The
result, however, was dual-edged, strongly reflecting a bi-directional resonance between
colonizer and colonized. The relationship between colonial power and colonial subject
here should not be seen simply as a rigid enforcement of power from above, but rather, as
Antonio Gramsci would state, a constant shift of negotiated (cultural) impressions
between the two that results in a power-play that is never fully one-sided.
43
In this

41
In addition to the main museum, branch museums were also founded to create space for the growing
collection of artifacts amassed by the excavations. Centered around the major excavation sites, the
Ky ŏngju branch was formed in 1926, the Puy ŏ branch was constructed in 1939 and the K ŏngju branch was
opened in 1940. Py ŏngyang and Kaes ŏng areas had their own municipal museums, which were not directly
run by the main museum, but often borrowed relics from the main museum and its branches for exhibitions.
[Steinberg, 15]

42
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,
(London: Verso, 1991), 178-185.

43
Ibid., 71.

102

construction of visual institutions, the museums and expositions played a part in the
formation of national identity, whether it be, in the case of colonial Korea, a Japanese,
Korean, or colonial Korean identity.

The National Museum – Post-1945: U.S. Military Involvement
After the formal surrender of Japan at the end of World War II on September 2,
1945, Korea was officially liberated from Japanese control but now found itself occupied
by U.S. forces. All cultural matters (these excavated objects were now considered
“culture” and “education”) were assigned to the Bureau of Culture within the Department
of Education, which was established according to U.S. military policies under Field
Order 55, XXIC Corps Annexes 7 and 8. The Bureau was directed to carefully preserve
and protect all objects of historical, cultural, and religious importance in the south.
44
Due
to the political circumstances of U.S. occupation, decisions, including those that affected
“art,” were driven by the motivation to prevent a Communist takeover. During the
Korean War, both Honolulu, Hawaii, and the Museum of Japan had been considered as
possible locations to temporarily store the Korean museum collection, but the American
Embassy and President Syngman Rhee rejected the options over political concerns about
how the North Korean regime would view the moves to a foreign country if found out.
45

44
Much’ ŏng Ch’ ŏng, “Mi kunch ŏnggi ŭi munhwa ch ŏngch’aek kwa misul gye [The Cultural Policies and
the Art World under the U.S. Military Government in Korea]” Misulsa y ŏn’gu [Art History Studies], no. 18
(2004): 95.

45
David I. Steinberg, “The National Museum of the Republic of Korea,” in Selected Studies in Korean Art,
ed. RAS Transactions Vol. XLIV (Seoul: Sahm-bo Publishing Corporation, 1968), 36 and 38. The gold
crown was the only item actually transported to Hawaii and remained there until 1957.

103

On December 3, 1945, the former Government-General Museum was re-opened
to the country as the National Museum [國立博物館 Kuknip pakmulgwan], with
archaeologist Kim Chew ŏn as its first director.
46
Nine days later on December 12, the
Museum Office was one of the first Korean government offices to be opened. Just prior
to these openings on November 19, 1945
47
both were placed under the jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Education, the Culture and Arts Section of the American military government,
under the officer-in-charge, Captain Eugene I. Knezevich,
48
thus emphasizing the
educational aspects of the museum.
49
While the significance of the swift opening of the
museum could be attributed to the recognition by the Americans of the importance of
Korea’s cultural heritage, the museum, in fact, had only undergone a name change –
nearly all else, including its location, building, and collection was completely the same.
The significant change was to be found in its staff, from a nearly all Japanese staff to a
Korean, untrained one.
The first order of business was to understand how the previous Japanese museum
staff had organized the items and museum. After the re-opening of the museum in

46
Kim Chew ŏn was officially appointed director of the museum on September 1945. S ŭnghun Yu
“Hy ŏnjang sok ŭi munhwajae ch ŏngch’aek [Cultural Properties Policy Today].” In Han’guk munhwajae
pohob ŏp ŭi palch ŏn kwach ŏng kwa ch ŏngbi panghyang [The Development-Process and Equipment-
Orientation of the Law for Protection of Cultural Properties in Korea], 19-62. Ch’ ŏngju: Ch’ungbuk
National University, 2002, 44.

47
David I. Steinberg, “The National Museum of the Republic of Korea,” in Selected Studies in Korean Art,
ed. RAS Transactions Vol. XLIV (Seoul: Sahm-bo Publishing Corporation, 1968), 19.

48
Captain Eugene I. Knezevich was a former anthropologist of the University of New Mexico and the U.S.
Park Service who assisted in the formal opening of the National Museum. [Steinberg, 20]

49
The first president of the Republic of Korea, Rhee Syngman, was not to be elected until August 1948.

104

December 1945, according to an inventory count in 1946 by the National Museum, the
collection totaled 49,764 items.
50
In trying to achieve this rather ambiguous task,
however, newly-appointed museum director Kim and his staff found that they needed
expert help. There were no trained Korean curators since Koreans had not been hired
under the colonial administration.
51
This fact was also confirmed after liberation by
Major Laurence Sickman, then a member of the Arts and Monuments Division of the U.S.
Military Government in December 1945: “Apparently there are few if any Koreans who
were trained by the Japanese to occupy key positions in museums and in field
archaeology.”
52
Kim requested assistance from the U.S. military in Korea who in turn
requested that Dr. Arimitsu Kyoichi (trained in archaeology at Kyoto University), former
Director of the Government-General Museum since June 1941, remain in Korea for an
additional year from 1945 until May 1946,
53
in order to orient and train the new Korean
staff. Under Kim and Arimitsu several now prominent Korean scholars were hired: Lee
Hongjik (graduate of Tokyo Imperial University), Kim W ŏn-yong (graduate of Keijo
University and later New York University),
54
Hwang Suy ŏng (graduate of Tokyo

50
National Museum of Korea (2006), 13.

51
“Inspections of Cultural Institutions in Korea,” a memorandum from Major Laurence Sickman (Arts and
Monuments Division, CIE, December 29, 1945), 2.

52
Ibid., 2.

53
S ŏky ŏng Ch’oe, “Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu pakmulgwan ŭi ch’ulhy ŏn kwa ‘silminjij ŏk kihoek’ [The
Colonial Opportunity in the Formation of the Government-General Museum]” Hos ŏsahak 27 (1999): 121-
123.

54
In 1947, both Kim Chew ŏn and Kim W ŏnyong made a trip to the United States under the auspices of the
Rockefeller Foundation where they sought to learn more about museum management. There they both
realized the importance of educating the public, among other issues. [Steinberg, 21]

105

Imperial University), Min Chungsik (graduate of Waseda University), Yoo Moyul
(graduate of Ehwa Womans University), and Ch’oe Sunu (1916-1984).
55
Due to time
constraints, lack of financial resources, and the overwhelming nature of the task, however,
the decision was made to maintain organization and categorization methods implemented
during the colonial period.
56

Director Kim Chew ŏn’s two primary foci for the museum were social education
and research, with the result that an overarching emphasis was placed on the historical
aspects of the objects. Unsurprisingly, given Kim’s own background as an archaeologist,
the National Museum’s educational aspects were strong in archaeology.
57
Under his
stewardship excavations commenced in May 1946 at two tombs, Hou Tomb and Ŭnryŏng
Tomb, providing confirming evidence of Silla-Kogury ŏ relations,
58
an art lecture series
and radio broadcasts were implemented for public edification (which were halted during
the Korean War 1950-1953), and activities of the museum were reported in the Kuknip
bakmulgwan gwanbo [National Museum Gazette], launched in September 1949. From
1946 until the onset of the Korean War, the National Museum organized a total of seven
exhibitions, which included exhibitions of the first two excavations, three exhibitions

55
Steinberg, 28-29.

56
Index cards used by the colonial museum to document information for each object, such as location
where object was found, person who found object, what condition the object was in, etc., are still referred
by National Museum staff today. [National Museum of Korea (2006), 9.

57
Hongnam Kim and Youngna Kim, 95.

58
For more information regarding these inaugural tomb excavations, see Hou Tomb and Ŭnry ŏng Tomb:
Commemorating the 60
th
Anniversary of the Excavation Symposium [in Korean], National Museum of
Korea (May 2006).

106

solely devoted to Kogury ŏ culture, one special exhibition featuring Yi dynasty paintings,
and one on “kukpo”
59
[國寶展覽會 kukpo cholhamhoe] from private collections in April
1950. The “kukpo” exhibition in 1950 cannot be officially considered an exhibition of
National Treasures, as the name kukpo implies, as it displayed national treasures, not
designated “National Treasures,” as compared with the multiple cultural treasure
exhibitions that were exhibited abroad. The total attendance for all seven exhibitions,
held over the years 1948-1950, was 181,200, with the kukpo exhibition drawing the
highest attendance of all seven with a total of 38,000 visitors.
60

Korean War (1950-1953) and After
By the advent of the Korean War (1950-53), museums collections located in the
northern part of the peninsula like Py ŏngyang and Kaes ŏng had been divided and sent to
other branch museums throughout Korea between 1945-1950. Objects from the Kaesŏng
and Ky ŏngju branch museums were moved to the National Museum in 1949. Starting in
December 1950 until May of the following year, Director Kim, with the assistance of U.S.
forces, secretly made four shipments of 18,883 objects by train to Pusan. These four
shipments included 83 boxes from the National Museum (including the ones from
Kaes ŏng and Ky ŏngju) and 155 boxes from the T ŏksugung museum, the former Royal Yi
Family Art Gallery, for a total of 420 boxes moved to Pusan. Although the National

59
According to the history of the National Museum, the use of the term “kukpo” [K:국보 Chinese
characters], while not “official,” as yet, was certainly appropriated from the Japanese to elevate Korea’s
own history.

60
National Museum of Korea (2006), 18.

107

Museum was attacked, after March 18, 1951, Seoul was under the protection of UN
forces and had not been attacked since then),
61
but with the majority of the collection in
Pusan, little harm was done.
62
Furthermore, Korean ancient art was preserved and
promoted as a means to combat communism and divert the attention of Korean artists at
the time.
63
The excavated artifacts, now referred to as art, were once again used as a
political device, this time in the name of anti-Communism. The war and the looming
Communist threat continually affected all potential movements of art throughout Korea
and even affected the employment of museum personnel. The heroic efforts of a few
attested to the growing understanding of the national importance of these objects.
After the end of the war in 1953, museum personnel and the Korean government
worked quickly to project a new image of Korea to the world through art. Korea’s first
major international exhibition, the Masterpieces of Korean Arts (1957), sponsored by the
Republic of Korea, presented Korea’s “best” works to the United States, both in gratitude
for the assistance of the American forces, and also to combat the impression of Korea that
Americans may have gained from war coverage and from a particular exhibition of war
photographs curated by Edward Steichen at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in
1951. This exhibition, Korea: The Impact of War in Photographs, reaffirmed war images

61
Ibid., 41-44. A more dramatic account of the move to Pusan can be found in Hyung Il Pai’s book.
[Hyung Il Pai, Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and
Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 239-240.

62
The branches of Puy ŏ and Kongju had not been affected by the war. [National Museum of Korea (2006),
45].

63
Much' ŏng Ch' ŏng, “1950 ny ŏndae miguk e sogae doen han’guk misul [Korean Art Represented in the
United States in the 1950s].” Han’guk k ŭndae misul sahak [Korean Modern Art History Studies] 14 (2005):
37.

108

found in newspapers and magazines with portrayals of Korean citizens as helpless and
pathetic. In other words, Steichen’s exhibition, the first major representation of Korea to
the U.S., was that of war.
64
To rectify this initial impression, the Masterpieces of Korean
Arts exhibition showcased a post-colonial Korea that now considered art to be the best
means to portray Korea’s pride in its culture. This exhibition, launched in December
1957 displayed 187 objects of which 20 were later named National Treasures (ceramics
and metalware) were displayed, and 9 were on loan from Ch ŏn Hy ŏn’pil’s collection.
65

Likewise, in the spring of 1961, the Exhibition of National Art Treasures of Korea held at
the Victoria & Albert Museum in Britain showcased a total of 152 objects, of which 22
were later named National Treasures and 6 were loaned from Ch ŏn Hy ŏn’pil’s collection.

66
The Masterpieces of Korean Arts exhibition was the first of 61 international
exhibitions, marking the beginning of a constant display of National Treasures (many
focusing on Korea’s cultural treasures) to be held abroad until the demolition of the
building of the Government-General of Korea headquarters and former National Museum
of Korea site in 1996.
Displaying abroad was not a problem; the challenge over the next couple decades
since liberation for museum administrators became that of finding the proper space for its
collection. At the end of the war in 1953, the collection moved to the former National

64
Jae-ryung Roe, “The Representation of National Identity in Korean Art Exhibitions, 1951-1994” (Ph.D.
diss, New York University, 1995), 120.

65
Republic of Korea, Masterpieces of Korean Art (Boston: Metcalf Co., 1957).

66
Arts Council of Britain, An Exhibition of National Art Treasures of Korea, lent by the government of the
Republic of Korea, Victoria & Albert Museum, 23 March to 7 May (London: The Arts Council, 1961).

109

Museum of Anthropology [國立民族博物館 kuknip minjok pakmulgwan] in Namsan
Mountain by the order of the South Korean government in order to consolidate and to
protect those objects both from both Pusan and Ky ŏngbokkung Palace in 1953. After a
period of only 11 months, military headquarters announced their intention to move to the
Namsan space in June 1954, and in June 1955, the collection moved to T ŏksugung Palace
(1955-1972), where, by order of the Bureau of Cultural Properties, the T ŏksugung Palace
was re-modeled and shared a space with the cultural properties until June 1972. After the
administrative change of the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Culture and
Communication in 1968, the Bureau of Cultural Properties moved the collection to the
newly built museum in Ky ŏngbokkung Palace in 1972. It was in 1975 that the National
Museum officially changed its name to the National Museum of Korea, and in August
1986, the collection moved to a renovated former Government-General building where
the Korean treasures and National Treasures were premiered at the 1988 Olympics and
stayed until May 1996. During the period between December 1996 and October 2004,
the collection moved back to the temporary building in Ky ŏngbokkung Palace until its
present “permanent” location, Yongsan, in 2005.
67
Today, the National Museum at
Yongsan possesses 113 National Treasures in its collection. Of these, 37 were passed on
to the National Museum inventory from the colonial period; 76 entered after liberation.
68

The most noteworthy of these locations were the colonial headquarters building,
the former Government-General building, and Yongsan. The National Museum of Korea

67
National Museum of Korea (2006), 38-67 and 이난영 [Yi, Nany ŏng] 박물관창고지기[Gatekeeper of
the Museum] (서울[Seoul]: 통천문화사 [T'ongch' ŏn Munhwasa], 2005), 284-285.

68
National Treasures inventory given to author by Chief Registrar Lee Naeok on June 1, 2007.
110

was hastily relocated to this building in 1986 in anticipation of the 1988 Olympics,
causing much embarrassment among Koreans that their art was being presented to the
world in the former colonial headquarters during their Olympic debut. This building
continued to serve as an eyesore until the building was partially destroyed on August 15,
1995, the 50
th
anniversary of Korea’s liberation, and then completely demolished by 1996
under then president Kim Young Sam (r.1993-1998). The Yongsan location is the first
and only location thus far intentionally erected to solely house the museum treasures
collection.
The multiple moves, a total of 6, put the art objects in potential danger of being
damaged, which bespeaks a deeper identity crisis – that of dealing with how best to
“house” or “present” Korea’s art. Nonetheless, despite the moves, which involved
circumstances often out of the museum’s control (i.e., financial, physical, political),
museum personnel were successful in finding ways to present the art to the public. From
the end of the war up until the final move to Yongsan in 2005, a period of nearly 55 years,
a total of an astonishing 162 exhibitions were organized for the domestic public.
69
Of
these, no exhibition was devoted to National Treasures. These domestic exhibitions,
many of which focused only on the arts of the Chos ŏn dynasty, as well as other historic
periods and non-Korean arts, reveal that the museum was highly intent on not only
bringing the arts to the Korean public, but also reintroducing the arts of the Chos ŏn
dynasty back into the discussion and understanding of Korean art. At least 28 exhibitions

69
Kuknip chungang pakmulgwan [National Museum of Korea], Ky ŏre wa hamkkae han kuknip
pakmulgwan 60 ny ŏn [Special Exhibition: Sixty Years of the National Museum], (Seoul: Kuknip chungang
pakmulgwan [National Museum of Korea], 2005), Appendix 2.

111

were solely devoted to Chos ŏn art, not including exhibitions on general Korean art; 14 of
these exhibitions were held in the first 30 years of the museum opening.
70
With the
exception of the followers of Yanagi Soetsu with their interest in folk art, the colonial
Japanese had summarily dismissed Chos ŏn arts as a “dying” art. By repositioning the
arts of the Chos ŏn dynasty, the museum personnel not only purposefully portrayed the
arts of Korea as they had been prior to the colonial period, but also based much of their
studies and exhibitions on Chos ŏn dynasty materials, which had survived in greater
number relative to the other historic periods. With a somewhat “continuous” history, a
national narrative could be visually composed to uphold the glories that belonged to
Korea. As Sheila Errington writes, “These two stories – the story of art and the story of
the nation – merged and gained visible form with the invention of the state museum of
fine art, where new nation-states displayed objects . . . and exhibited [them] in such a way
as to tell a story of national glory.”
71
A national humiliation experienced by a colonized
country nearly necessitates a myth or reality of such a glorious tradition.
72

Chapter Conclusion:
What changed in the turnover from the colonial museum to the Korean museum?
Physical buildings were in kept in place, collections had essentially remained the same,

70
Ibid., Appendix 2.

71
Shelly Errington, “Art History and Modernism,” in Art History and Its Institutions: Foundations of a
Discipline, ed., Elizabeth Mansfield (London: Routledge Press, 2002), 211.

72
Richard Harris, “Myths and Memories: The Role of National Museums in Representing National Identity
in a Post-Colonial Era” (Ph.D. diss., The University of New Mexico, 2002), 5.

112

and committees were formed once again. The structure, or framework, then, was the
same, but the people were different. Koreans replaced Japanese, and thus the ownership
of control changed hands: “Authenticity is not about factuality or reality. It is about
authority. Objects have no authority; people do. It is people on the exhibition team who
must make a judgment about how to tell about the past.”
73
A powerful and sustaining
realization had occurred regarding the value of the formerly unexcavated objects. The
Korean government wished to reclaim possession of the country’s art. Dedicated efforts
during the Korean War are evidence of the significance the Koreans now placed on
reclaiming their heritage and international identity. But the selection process had not
been theirs. The Japanese museum staff was replaced by Koreans who did not know
what to do; they themselves for the most part educated in Japanese universities.
Furthermore, the impression of completeness given by the National Treasures
collection belies the selection processes that were originally involved. Museums are
constructed in relation to the collections which they hold, and meanings in museums raise
questions about which objects have been collected and why, and what is known about
them from what perspective. One critical element in the construction of meaning within
museums is the presence or absence of particular objects. The lack of representation of
the northern half of the Korean peninsula, for example, directly accounts for a significant
decrease in the objects from the ancient kingdoms of Kogury ŏ, Parhae, and parts of

73
Spencer R. Crew and James I. Sims, “Locating Authenticity: Fragments of a Dialogue,” Exhibiting
Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, ed. Ivan Karp, et al., (Washington: Smithsonian
Institution Press, 1991), 163.

113

Kory ŏ. Koreans, and as a result, we, do not know the significance of the so-called
“discards” or lower-graded objects in Sekino’s initial excavations.
Ultimately, the creation of Korea’s museums reinforced the impact of the art
dealers and art collectors in perceiving these excavated artifacts as works of art. This
destination allowed, as Donald Preziosi has written, the invention of “art” to be
understood as both a thing itself and as a medium of expression.
74
In so doing, the seeds
of an artistic canon could be realized: “Much of the work of museums in the past has
involved the establishment of a canon. Canons create order by giving authority to certain
texts, figures, ideas, problems, discursive strategies, and historical narratives. This is a
strategy of boundary maintenance through which some are enabled to speak and are
empowered but others are silenced and marginalized.”
75
Collecting activities and
museums were to prove a significant by-product of the colonial excavations conducted
throughout the colonial period in Korea until 1943, the final year an official registration
list was made. We have seen how the deliberate display of collected objects visually
enabled the significant transition from mere excavated archaeological artifact to art. The
relationship between these excavated objects and the discipline of art history, however,
was not yet solidified, as our next chapter will consider.

74
Robert S. Nelson and Richard Shiff, Critical Terms for Art History (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1996), 284.

75
Eileen Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture (New
York: Routledge Press, 2000), 21.
114

Chapter 4: The Leap into Art History

Chapter Introduction
Unlike Western examples of the establishment of a canon of art, Korea’s art
history is not propelled by names of great artists or defining masterpieces. In the West,
until the Romantic Movement, it was assumed that a great work of art was something
unique, the product of unconditioned genius.
1
Many Western art historians focus on the
artist and, as a result, introductory surveys to Western art are organized according to the
works of the great artists. But even the “artist” needs to be questioned. In Korea, this
“artist” was not one in the Western sense, but likely a craftsman, technical tradesman,
common labor worker. George W. Stocking suggests that “[a]s their productions become
entangled in the market nexus, some of those who were or might have been native
craftsmen are transformed into artists in the Western sense.”
2

Again unlike the Western experience, the development of the discipline of
Korea’s art history unfolded over the course of a mere century as a result of three distinct,
yet overlapping, factors: 1) the placement of the excavated finds in the physical locations
of the museums and art exhibitions; 2) the growth in numbers of scholarly and museum
professionals who were involved in making the physical spaces what they were, that is,

1
Andre Malraux, The Voices of Silence: Man and His Art, (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1953),
17.

2
George W. Stocking Jr., “Essays on Museums and Material Culture,” in Objects and Others: Essays on
Museums and Material Culture, ed. George W. Stocking Jr. (Madison University of Wisconsin Press,
1985), 6.

115

the dynamic of the people involved with the exhibitions being aware or becoming aware
that they were dealing with works of art; and 3) the political undercurrents of the
exhibitions. The display at the museum in fact was, as Tapati describes, “defined around
a common essence,” allowing for the organization and comprehension of all the works of
art into a “single, unitary, and uniquely national formation.”
3
It is the interstices of this
evolution and the final development of the formation of a Korean canon of art, hence,
what I have referred to as the “leap to art history,” which will be examined in this chapter.

Early Publications
As a result of the international expositions and exhibitions, Korean intellectuals
began to consider how the rest of the world viewed their culture and thus their art. At the
same time, others in the world were directing their attentions to Korea and its arts. A
handful of articles and books on Korean art had been written in Western languages in the
late 19
th
century: William Eliot Griffis,”The Corean Origin of Japanese Art”
4
(1882);
W.R. Carles, author of Corea, The Hermit Nation (1882) and Life in Corea (1888), who
purchased Kory ŏ ceramics illegally excavated from tombs near Kaes ŏng in 1885
5
; and
Pierre Louis Jouy’s “The Collection of Korean Mortuary Pottery in the United States

3
Tapati Guha-Thakurta, Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and Postcolonial
India, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 27, 190-191.

4
Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine, XXV, no. 2 (December 1882), p. 224-9.

5
W.R. Carles, Life in Corea, (London: McMillan and Co.), 1888, 139-141.

116

National Museum” (1890)

.
6
It is interesting to ponder how these authors obtained their
information given that Koreans opened their ports to the U.S. only in 1876. Griffis’
article, for example, attributes all of Japanese art to Koreans, even suggesting that it was
a Korean who provided the “seed” for the country. He claimed that the Japanese did not
have any art to call their own, but rather that Japan had borrowed actively from Korea
and China until the 9
th
century. The appreciation of Korean art as evidenced by these
authors not only reflects a serious curiosity about Korea and her arts prior to the colonial
period, but a drastically different conception of Korea’s role within the sphere of East
Asia based on the art activities of the late 19
th
century Chosŏn period.
Within the colonial period, excavation lists, museum exhibition catalogs, and
publications in magazines at the turn of the century had begun to stimulate a visual
interest in Korea’s excavated objects. The committees formed in conjunction with the
excavation projects during the colonial period were academically oriented
7
and with this
goal in mind, their notable tasks included choosing and publishing photographed volumes
of excavated objects. This visual exposure, for the most part funded by the colonial
government and in part by individual donors, directly spurred the art market trade as
discussed in Chapter 3. The Government-General of Korea not only established the
Government-General museum in Korea in 1915 in anticipation of displaying the finds,

6
Pierre Louis Jouy’s “The Collection of Korean Mortuary Pottery in the United States National Museum,”
in the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institute, for the year ending June 30, 1888,
Washington D.C., 1890.

7
Sunja Lee, “Ilche kangch ŏmgi koj ŏk chosa ŏp y ŏn’gu [A Study of Koj ŏk Investigations During the
Japanese Colonial Period].” Ph.D. diss., Sookmyung Womens’ University, 2007), 46.

117

but, in conjunction with the museum exhibitions, expended much money and effort to
produce museum exhibition catalogs featuring the highlights of the exhibition in a 17
volume series Hakubutsukan chinretsuhin zukan [博物館陳列品圖鑑 Illustrated
Catalogue of Displayed Works in the Museum] beginning in 1918.
8
Published almost
yearly, each volume was produced with its own distinctive and colorful cover and
featured approximately 12 items, each depicted by a full-page black and white
photograph accompanied by both English and Japanese descriptions. The caption
provided a name of the object with information regarding the historic period, the material
used, and a very brief description that ranged from where it was excavated to a stylistic
description. The thin and portable nature of each volume would have made it easy to
carry around and even share volumes with others. These efforts reflected a strong official
inclination to package and propagate the idea of a national art heritage in the form of a
single museum collection that was then offered between the covers of select albums.
9

In 1932, when there were less than a handful of books written on the arts of
Korea,
10
excavator, archaeologist, and art historian Sekino Tadashi published the
pioneering Korean traditional art history book, Chōsen bijutsushi [Korean Art History].
Sekino (1868–1935) was not only a leading figure in the S ōtokufu expeditions, he has

8
Ch ōsen S ōtokufu Hakubutsukan. Hakubutsukan chinretsuhin zukan, Vol. 1-17. Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu
Hakubutsukan, 1918-1943.

9
Tapati Guha-Thakurta, 194.

10
Among the earliest Korean art history books acknowledged include Andre Eckardt, Geschichte der
Koreanischen Kunst [The History of Korean Art in German] (Leipzig, K.W. Hiersemann, 1929);
and Sechang O, K ŭny ŏk s ŏhwa ching (Seoul: Hangmun’gak, 1970) [Kin’iki shogacho (originally published
1928) (Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1971).

118

also been acknowledged as one of the influential minds behind the classification and
historical interpretation of the sites they studied. As a result, the book was not only a
chronological compilation of the Korean treasures Sekino had encountered in his many
years of excavating, the book presented artifacts according to historic period and type (as
was typical of “authorless” objects) and placed them within a modified historical context.
His chronology was based on the Japanese view that Korean art had begun with the
Chinese Han commanderies (Lelang, present-day Py ŏngyang area) and ended with the
Chos ŏn period which itself was demarcated into two periods, acknowledging the major
Japanese invasions of the peninsula: Early Chos ŏn (1392-1598) and Late Chos ŏn (1599-
1910).
Due to the fastidious photographic records kept over the years, the book contains
many photographed images of a wide range of artifacts, including 37 images which were
later to become National Treasures in 1962, representing a sizeable portion of the total
images used.

119

Table 7. Photographs in Sekino’s Ch ōsen bijutsushi [Korean Art History]

Type:
Buddhas 10
Stone pagoda 9
Hall 5
Stone lantern 2
Bell 1
Wall painting 1
Monuments 1
Gate 1
Stele 1
Stone basin 1
Gold 1
Stupa 1
Celadon 3
37 37 future National Treasures / 116 =
31.9% of 1962 list

Top 3:
Buddhas 10 (27.0%)
Stone pagodas 9 (24.3)
Hall 5 (13.5)

By time period:
Three Kingdoms 1 (2.7)
Koguryo 0
Paekche 1 (2.7)
Silla 1 (2.7)
United Silla 19 (51.4)
Koryo 10 (27.0)
Choson 5 (13.5)
37
Sekino continued to maintain his serious interest in architecture and his choices
for the book reflect this inclination. At the same time, while the book is forceful yet brief
in its object descriptions, his references to foreign influences, particularly China,
predominate. As a result, Sekino’s contextual analysis of the Korean objects themselves
is weak, if not lacking. To Sekino, the peak of Korea’s artistic achievement belonged to
120

the Unified Silla period, a period predominant in its Buddhist art in which he could find
comparisons with Japan’s Buddhist art. The later Chos ŏn period is dismissed as a period
of dying, uninspiring art work.
11
Sekino’s book was recently translated in 2003, but has
continued to be sold in bookstores today.
In contrast, Kim W ŏnyong produced an important Korean art history book to be
written by a Korean in 1956, eleven years after liberation. His book, Han’guk Misulsa
[Korean Art History], too, organized artifacts chronologically and by type, but with
information that is far more grounded in Korea’s history. Due to his training at
Ky ŏngs ŏng Imperial University (later Tokyo University), the Western/Japanese influence
of organization and presentation still remains.
12
Yet, what is significant are Kim’s efforts
to anchor the history of these Korean art works in the fields of both art history and
archaeology in Korea, a practice not uncommon in northeast Asia, by placing much
emphasis on identifying the overall stylistic influences and trends in the arts of each
period. Also replete with photographs, some in color, Kim’s book features 76 National
Treasures (twice that of Sekino’s) that provide highlights to his interpretation of Korean
art.

11
This particular aesthetic was championed fiercely by Yanagi Soetsu in the late 1920s and 1930s. Kim
Brandt, Kingdom of Beauty: Mingei and the Politics of Folk Art in Imperial Japan (Durham: Duke
University Press, 2007); Kim Brandt, “Objects of Desire: Japanese Collectors and Colonial Korea,”
positions: east asia cultures critique 8, no. 3 (2000): 711-46; Yuko Kikuchi, Japanese Modernisation and
Mingei Theory: Cultural Nationalism and Oriental Orientalism, (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004).

12
Kim W ŏnyong received his Ph.D. training at New York University in 1959 after he had already written
Han’guk Misulsa (1956).

121

Table 8. Photographs in Kim’s Han’guk Misulsa [Korean Art History]
Type:
Buddha 18
Stone pagoda 17
Hall 10
Celadon, etc. 8
Bronze and gold 4
Gate 3
Stupa 3
Stele 3
Stone lantern 2
Monuments 2
Bell 1
Flagpole 1
Wall painting 1
Hungmin chongum 1
Tripitaka 1
Chomsongdae 1
76 76 total National Treasures/ 116 = 65.5% of the
1962 list

Top 3:
buddhas 18 23.7
stone pagoda 17 22.4
hall 10 13.2

By time period:
Three Kingdoms 3 (3.8)
Koguryo 1 (1.3)
Paekche 2 (2.6)
Silla 5 (6.4)
United Silla 27 (35.5)
Koryo 27 (35.5)
Choson 11 (14.1)
76

The predominant use of Buddhist statues and stone pagodas demonstrate the continuing
influence of the colonial period preferences (as seen in the excavations) as a continuing
122

influence. Kim’s methodology of art history, solidified later during his American
training at New York University, remains in practice in Korea today. It is also notable
that for 35 years, Kim served on the committee responsible for electing and demoting
National Treasures.
Both books, despite the dearth of authoritative scholarship, essentially laid the
beginnings and formation of Korean art history as it is practiced and learned in Korea
today. Yet, as James Clifford aptly points out, “Every appropriation of culture, whether
by insiders or outsiders, implies a specific temporal position and form of historical
narration.”
13
Each author wrote his historical narration of the same objects from two
distinctly different points in Korea’s history. One was written from an official colonial
perspective; the other was re-written, in a sense, as the viewpoint of an individual of a
liberated country. Few other resources were available regarding these objects that were
to form the basis of Korea’s traditional art history. It was only in the 1980s that art
history was established as an academic discipline, when Seoul National University,
Korea’s most prestigious university, instituted its art history and archaeology department
with Kim W ŏnyong, thus setting the tone for other schools to follow.
14

13
James Clifford, The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art.
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 232.

14
The distinction between archaeology and art history here is hard to delineate since many of these objects
were simply gathered and transmitted. The designation of these objects as cultural treasures and their
formal presentations in museums, allowed the labeling of Korean objects as works of art within a context of
the field of archaeology – a partnership which continues today.

123

The Significance of the Masterpieces Exhibition
Not long after the departure of the Japanese colonizers, a political power struggle
among Communist Russia and China and non-Communist America was played out on the
Korean peninsula. The resulting Korean War and subsequent armistice led to a division
of the country which propelled the Korean government of the South to re-create Korea’s
image to the world. A few years after the Korean War in 1957, a number of these
artworks, including future National Treasures, were shown in America in an exhibition
entitled Masterpieces of Korean Arts, as an official show of gratitude for America’s
assistance in the Korean War. It must be kept in mind that after liberation, in the eyes of
many Korean citizens, America was seen as the “liberator” and “benefactor” of Korea,
and was thus held in high regard.
15
This historic exhibition was a historic opportunity to
showcase to the world what now was being touted as Korea’s art.
The impact of this critically-timed exhibition tour on the development of Korea’s
art history cannot be overstated. Not only was this first international traveling exhibition
the first post-colonial debut of Korean arts abroad, serving to concretize the notion of
visual arts of Korea around the world and within Korea itself, but the works of art chosen
to represent Korea were packaged as the finest that Korea had to offer, as “masterpieces.”
The exhibition featured painting, sculpture, ceramics, and jewelry dating from 2000 B.C.
up to the 19
th
century. While heavily slanted towards the depiction of earthenware and

15
Homin Yang, “The Perception of the United States During the Japanese Colonial Period,” in Korean
Perceptions of the United States: A History of Their Origins and Formation (Paju: The Asan Foundation,
2006), 209-306.

124

ceramics, the primary intent of the organizers, particularly of those like Kim Chew ŏn,
was to single out the “distinctiveness” of Korean art and to package the art objects as
Korea’s national art.
The exhibit, which started in Washington, D.C. at the National Gallery of Art,
traveled to eight cities across the United States, including New York (Metropolitan
Museum of Art), Boston (Museum of Fine Arts), Seattle (Seattle Art Museum),
Minneapolis (The Minneapolis Institute of Arts), San Francisco (California Palace of the
Legion of Honor), Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Museum), and Honolulu (Honolulu
Academy of Arts).
16
Despite these impressive venues, the publicity for the exhibition
was relatively scant. Furthermore, the organizers of the exhibition literature began a
trend that would last to the present day, spreading to museums and private galleries that
possess National Treasures all over Korea: they did not choose to elaborate in detail or in
depth on any of the works. The only identification given was of “National Treasure No. -
-,” leaving the viewer, native or foreign, to accept each particular object as being a
“treasure” of “national” significance without fully understanding why this designation
applies. A museum label should explain; this is part of communicating with the visitor.
As Mark Roskill writes,
Changes of labels on works of art, and changes in what is known and
said about them, are not simply a shifting kind of game, which goes on
without altering the fundamental nature or value of the work itself. A
work of art is affected in the way in which it is seen, by the label it
carries, reflecting how it is rated and what is known behind that label.
17

16
Jae-ryung Roe, “The Representation of National Identity in Korean Art Exhibitions, 1951-1994” (Ph.D.
diss., New York University, 1995), 123.

17
Mark Roskill, What Is Art History (London: Thames and Hudson 1976), 9.

125

Chapter Conclusion
The “leap” into art history was in some ways a leap of faith that the art objects
could be reclaimed by the Koreans and that a field of Korean art history could be
launched from the backbones of a colonial legacy. The discipline of Korean art history
has been, up until now, a short one at least compared to the Western experiences of the
discipline. This does not mean, however, that the life thread of art in Korea has been
equally short. The contributions of colonization for Korean art history remain and the
on-going excavations conducted produced the material evidence to corroborate what were
only verbal descriptions in ancient historical annals, thus attesting to the artistic
achievements of a pre-modern Korea. This process, in part, created the National
Treasures system today. From careless scattering of objects during the Chos ŏn dynasty
to stealthy maneuvering during the Korean War, Korean concerns about the ancient
objects clearly shifted. This change reflected an overall movement in Korea after the war
of defining its own identity and of promoting a national spirit. The awareness of a need
for national identity was very much born out of the “struggle against colonial
exploitation.”
18
To develop such a self-understanding, nationalist scholars turned to the
ancient past for a key to Korea’s “authentic identity.”
19
In addressing these issues, what
becomes apparent is the powerful role of art in the process of revising history.

18
Partha Chatterjee, “Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World,” in The Partha Chatterjee Omnibus:
Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World, The Nation and Its Fragments, A Possible India (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1997), 18.

19
Hyung Il Pai, Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and
Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 20.
126

The concept of the national was embedded in the artifacts when laws were made
to protect objects within the boundaries of Korea. Even before these objects were
officially protected by the two cultural property laws of 1916 and 1933, the objects were
displayed in the colonial museum in 1915 and presented to the viewing public as art. As
Benedict Anderson writes, “Museumized this way, they were repositioned as regalia for a
secular colonial state.”
20

These museums, then, like those of Europe in and after the Enlightenment Age,
were created in the context of nation-state formation, but in this case they were formed
within a bubble of colonization. One might argue that this was necessary in the
realization of Korea as a nation both to its citizens and to the world in the way that “. . .
many newly-created states have found that they must rediscover such a past if they are to
acquire the self-esteem which they so badly need following extended periods of colonial
rule.”
21
But whose nation was being represented? This national narrative stemming from
these “evidentiary artifacts” was a particular mode of fiction, referred to as “real” history,
but constitutes “. . . one of the most brilliant and remarkable genres of modern fiction,
and one which has become an indispensable component of statehood and of national
identity in every corner of the world.”
22

20
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,
(London: Verso, 1991), 182.

21
David I. Steinberg, “The National Museum of the Republic of Korea,” in Selected Studies in Korea Art
(Seoul: Sahm-bo Publishing Corporation, 1968), 1.

22
Tapati Guha-Thakurta, Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and Postcolonial
India (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 184.

127

Conclusion: A Korean Art Canon?

Chapter Introduction
The year 2010 marks the 100
th
year since Japan annexed Korea. Five years ago,
in 2005, the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI) resolved the National Treasure No. 1
controversy by declaring that Namdaemun Gate will remain National Treasure No. 1.
While the BAI had earlier announced that there were more deserving candidates,
numerous meetings with the Cultural Heritage Administration made clear that the number
designation did not imply a value system. The BAI announced plans to remove the
numbering system altogether. The National Treasure numbering system is presently still
in place.
1
This internal government wrangling adds another chapter to a long history of
governmental efforts, both Japanese and Korean, to manage the public message
surrounding the National Treasure objects.

Managing Public Perceptions: The Colonial Case
We have seen that as part of Japan’s efforts to confer modernity on Korea, objects
located throughout the peninsula that had been buried in tombs for centuries were
excavated by colonial authorities as part of a larger cultural colonizing agenda. Once the
objects were excavated, they were decontextualized from their original setting and usage
and reassigned ranks of value. Already from their initial discovery, these objects were

1
Chos ŏn Ilbo, 15 November.2005.

128

implicitly imbued with notions of power, ownership, and aesthetic. The colonial
excavators achieved all three for the colonial government by their actions: by excavating
objects on the colonized peninsula, the control of power was made clear to the Koreans –
as a colonizer, Japan could do what it wished; by categorizing, assigning value, and
creating spaces for display, the colonizers introduced Western methodologies and
presented the excavated objects as clearly belonging to the colonial government; and by
holding exhibitions in Western-derived institutions like museums, an aesthetic judgment
was made (first by the excavators in their initial rankings) and presented to the Koreans
to be accepted as the “right” way to view these objects. Even before these objects were
officially protected by the two cultural property laws of 1916 and 1933, the objects were
displayed in the colonial museum in 1915 and presented to the viewing public as art.
These once “naïve” objects, decontextualized, could, at best, only be placed
within broad historical time periods – Silla, Kaya, Paekche, etc. – all determined by the
location of the excavation and previous geographic relations to earlier dynasties.
Displayed in chronological order, the colonial exhibition collection was organized in
what Shelly Errington refers to as a “progressivist evolutionist story,” as was popularly
utilized in Western museums at the time. It was, as she describes, “the line of time,
measured by some art objects influencing other art objects that occur later along the
line.”
2
In this sense, instead of being an aesthetic object with no use-value, a common
description of fine arts, these Korean “fine art” objects had been attributed with a higher

2
Shelly Errington, “Progressivist Stories and the Pre-Columbian Past: Notes on Mexico and the United
States,” in Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past, ed. Elizabeth Hill Boone (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton
Oaks, 1993), 220.

129

historical value – one that was initially used by the colonial government to compare or
contrast historical similarities between Japan, Korea, and at times, China. Thus, it is
questionable whether the objects when first excavated were actually initially perceived as
“art” by the colonized Koreans; rather, they were certainly constituted as historical
objects, and only later referred to as “art” by their subsequent placement and display in
museums.

Managing Public Perceptions: The Post-Liberation Case
After liberation, the narration of this “story” was re-constructed to serve the
interests of the Korean nation-state. That is, Koreans did not return to their nascent pre-
colonial interpretations of fine arts displayed at the world’s fairs, but appropriated both
the Japanese excavated objects for their “art” displays and the Japanese approach of using
the objects for writing history. The emergence of the canon itself was decided upon by
government bureaucrats and museum personnel, as objects to represent Korean art. This
shift, from found object to art object, was not one based on any mandate from the Korean
people or any critical discussion. Indeed, what became “national” was, and continues to
be chosen by a ruling elite [that] speaks for the entire nation and thus who see themselves
as standing for the nation. It is their historical experience that becomes relevant to
crafting of their particular national narrative.
3

3
Shelly Errington, “Progressivist Stories and the Pre-Columbian Past: Notes on Mexico and the United
States,” in Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past, ed. Elizabeth Hill Boone (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton
Oaks, 1993), 241.

130

The first time newspapers publicly tackled the subject of the National Treasures in
post-colonial Korea was in 1962, the year the Law of Cultural Properties was enacted.
Each day, an officially designated National Treasure was featured in the largely
circulated newspaper, the Dong-a-Ilbo, with an accompanying photograph and a quarter
page section devoted to the object’s name and simple stylistic description, including
measurements, color, medium, and present condition of the object, as well as former or
present owner of the object, if known. Intermittently, certain articles included a very
brief (one or two line) opinion by one of the cultural property committee members,
although the status of these individuals as National Treasure judges was not revealed.
Furthermore, some articles stated that the object being featured was being re-designated a
National Treasure, although no further explanation as to the process or reasoning was
provided. Below are two very rough translations out of this series that illustrate this point
(brief explanations have been inserted in square brackets, where necessary):

131

Dong-a Ilbo 11.16.62
Tour of National Treasures - Kima inmul dosang (Man on horse riding,
sculpture)[title]. Formerly National Treasure No. 510.
4
Presently part of
the National Museum of Korea collection. From the Three Kingdoms
dynasty in Ky ŏngju [historic period]. Excellent example of clay piece
representing an historic time period. This piece represents one of a pair of
twin pieces – one with master riding and the other with the servant riding.
This piece represents the master riding. The triangular-shaped hat
represents a noble or bureaucratic man who stands with his back straight.
Behind the figure sits a storage bowl. Head of horse and chest and hips
are very realistic. Probably of 5
th
or 6
th
century. One with servant is same,
except for the triangular hat, rather the hat is round with pointed top.
According to Ch’oe Sunu [committee member named here], this piece
looks like it was made for tomb use.
5

Other articles were far more concise:

Dong-a Ilbo 11.19.62
Chungja ap(duck)hyong(shape)yon(water bottle)chok(drop)[title]:
Ceramic duck-shaped water dropper. Was taken abroad to European
exhibitions. Formerly National Treasure No. 435. From the Ch ŏn
Hy ŏngpil collection. H: 8cm. L: 12.5cm. 11
th
or 12
th
century object.
Kory ŏ society luxury item. Lotus flower on its back. Water comes out of
its beak. Slightly broken tip.
6

Such newspaper articles showcased Korea’s treasures to the world, but each entry
provided no social or cultural context as to why the piece merited National Treasure
status. The brief, literal description merely presented each item as an object to be
identified and simply accepted as a National Treasure without understanding why.
While the newspapers themselves may have been limited in the kind of information they

4
This designation and the one below are indicative of the “unofficial” designations assigned prior to the
Korean official designation in December 1962, although the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties
was promulgated in January 1962.

5
Dong-a Ilbo (Seoul), 16 November 1962.

6
Dong-a Ilbo (Seoul), 19 November 1962.

132

could provide, the lack of information regarding each National Treasure in later printed
materials as well as exhibition catalogs and museum labels suggests that the government
has been wary to this day of fully divulging how the National Treasures came to be.
Despite this lack of information – or perhaps because of it, the media and tourism have
more than adequately served to perpetuate and popularize many of Korea’s National
Treasures by over production of their images, thus ensuring their status within the Korean
canon for the uninformed public.

Rejecting a Nationalized Art Canon?
Within the context of early art exhibitions, collecting activities, publications, art
museums, and political influences, the study of the history of art was established and a
canon was promoted. But it seems that the colonial government, by virtue of applying a
standard of classification, produced meaning and referred to it as history of art. The leap
from Treasures and National Treasure to the birth of Korea’s traditional art canon was a
process borne out of colonial actions. The collection of Korean art recognized as the
canon, therefore, was innately political in its inception. The objects excavated were
mostly unearthed from royal and other tombs that served as visual proof, to the Japanese
government, of the certain existence of Korean dynasties. The National Treasures have
become a stock group of objects that appears and reappears as representative examples of
historic time periods and dynasties. Yet, in many instances, the objects were not
originally intended for the public’s view, as they were interred in tombs, while other
works were only intended for religious use such as Buddhist works and architecture.
133

These goods were never intended to be displayed in the first place; they were never
meant to be art. In the end, then, what are we to make of an art canon that was selected
by foreigners, composed of funerary or religious goods, and created not by celebrated
artists but by unknown craftsmen? What does this say about Korea’s traditional art
history of today?
The components for the basis of Korean traditional art history, the power of the
state, the power of collecting and the art markets, and the power of the museum, in
hindsight, were exclusively the work of the colonial government. Although the
excavation projects may have been conducted for less than seemly purposes, the resulting
collecting activities, museum exhibitions, and related publications served to enlighten
interested Koreans in the ways of developing a discipline. In the process, the Japanese,
by applying their own methods in shoring up their own identity, inadvertently showed the
Koreans how to shore up theirs. But in this “replacement” of a historical narrative,
trailblazing scholars such as Kim Chew ŏn and Kim W ŏnyong, who wrote in the years
just after colonization, based their knowledge of Korean art history on Japanese
archaeological evidence. In many ways, there was simply no time to do otherwise. This
built-in bias, or Japanese-chosen aesthetic, was part and parcel of the collection the
Koreans had inherited. The need to solidify the notion of a nation-state was an urgent
matter and the early presidencies of the Republic of Korea used art to ratify their causes.
Once again, as during the colonial period, art and politics could not be separated in
Korean art history’s legacy.
134

Carrying out a kind of “Oriental” Orientalism, referring to Edward Said’s
fundamental colonial structure to shed some light on the Japan-Korea colonial
relationship, European “superiority,” in this case, Japan’s claims of superiority, relegated
the Orient, in this case, Korea, to an inferior status, thereby becoming part of the ideology
of imperialism.
7
Said demonstrates how Orientalism became a kind of doctrine for
allowing the West to dominate the Orient. So too, Japan found ways to legitimize and
solidify its own imperial intentions towards Korea. The parallel seen here works
particularly well since it has been well-documented that Japan, in its newfound
imperialist role, was seeking the approval and recognition of the Western powers by often
imitating their ways. Yet, while Said’s binary and uni-directional framework can offer a
way to understand Japan’s need to colonize Korea, the picture, including the formation of
Korea’s cultural treasures, is not complete. Mark Caprio, for example, has argued that
the Korean situation was one of assimilation, largely decided because of Korea’s
proximity to Japan, both physically and culturally.
8

With these understandings of orientalism and assimilation, one can begin to
critique the colonial process itself. Homi Bhabha suggests a modified approach to Said’s
binary structure and offers an approach that holds more potency when regarding Korea’s
development of art. By moving away from the colonizer/colonized binary that is often
entrenched within colonial theory, he considers the influences that apply to both

7
Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 1-28.

8
Mark E. Caprio, “Colonizing Peoples: Assimilation Theory and Practice and Japanese Administration
Policies in Korea,” Occasional Papers, No. 10 (Tokyo: Rikkyo University Centre for Asia Region Studies,
2002), 1-68.

135

systems.
9
In other words, while Japan strove to assert its identity and seek legitimacy
and stability as an imperial nation, the results, inadvertently, gave Korea a sense of
nationhood through its art. This sort of reasoning was voiced in earlier chapters by Hong.
Bert Winther-Tamaki also critiques the over-privileging of an East versus West mentality
and shows “how diverse works of art have been energized” by each other at the “interface
between national cultures.”
10

From the path of “invented tradition” during the colonial period and cultures
“energizing” each other to “reconceptualization” after liberation, we can begin to realize
that nations themselves are narrations. The power to narrate, or to block other narratives
from forming and emerging, is critical in the dialogues involving national identity and
colonialism, and in turn, modernity. In this context, Korea’s national identity was not
only a form of resistance to the “oppressive” Japanese regime, but was being formed due
to differing forces within Korean society. In the emergence of new colonial concepts of
archaeological excavations, exhibitions, art associations, and museums, some existing
Korean social patterns were weakened and new ones were created. Japanese efforts to
assimilate Koreans were successful at times and at other times not, producing unforeseen
results that strengthened the sense of Korean culture. For example, while the radio was
developed to promote cultural assimilation, it also served as a venue for Koreans to

9
Homi K. Bhabha, Nation and Narration (London: Routledge Press, 1990), 1-7; 291-322.

10
Bert Winther-Tamaki, Art in the Encounter of Nations: Japanese and American Artists in the Early
Postwar Years (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2001), 173-177.

136

negotiate their sense of identity.
11
Soon-Won Park has written about the positive
emergence of a Korean working class.
12
Michael Shin has demonstrated how the
colonial repressive atmosphere allowed author Yi Kwangsu to write a literature in search
of himself, and thus, with a nationalist vision.
13
Clark Sorensen has written of the new
emerging peasant class which he sees as the essence of Korean national identity.
14
It is
among these examples that the purpose and place of Korea’s National Treasures system
and its art should be situated to better understand its role in Korea’s modernity and to find
a way for Korean art to be part of the conversation in Korean studies.
As David Lowenthal has written, “…the past is highly malleable and one’s mode
of preservation and presentation tells much about the present.”
15
The art objects, though
themselves inert, reflected the malleable meanings and narratives as controlled by the
power of the owner, in this case, the state. The museum label, which forms a connection
between viewer and object, is, then, part of this control. By limiting the information on
the Masterpieces Exhibition labels, the organizers avoided mention of the objects’
colonial origins, a disruption in the viewer-object connection for both then and now. As

11
Michael Edson Robinson, “Broadcasting, Cultural Hegemony, and Colonial Modernity in Korea, 1924-
1945,” in Colonial Modernity in Korea (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 52-69.

12
Soon-w ŏn Park, “Colonial Industrial Growth and the Emergence of the Korean Working Class,” in
Colonial Modernity in Korea (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 128-160.

13
Michael Shin, “Interior Landscapes: Yi Kwangsu’s The Heartless and the Origins of Modern Literature,”
in Colonial Modernity in Korea (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 248-287.

14
Clark Sorensen, “National Identity and the Creation of the Category ‘Peasant’ in Colonial Korea,” in
Colonial Modernity in Korea (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 288-310.

15
Stefan Tanaka, “Imaging History: Inscribing Belief in the Nation,” The Journal of Asian Studies 53, no.
1 (1994), 36.

137

a result, “[t]hese objects were not silenced; they were mute. The public did not have to
forge their contexts; it was ignorant of them.”
16
Rather, the emphasis, the “visual
education” to be accepted by the viewer, was placed on the socio-cultural history
presented within a linear development, “privileging,” as art historian Jae-ryung Roe
writes, “continuity rather than ruptures, homogeneity across the national territory rather
than regional differences, and coherence across the genres of the high art and fine arts
rather than the diversity with the genres of handicrafts or popular arts.”
17
In the end, by
withholding information from the museum labels, the result is a presentation of “national
identity” that leaves the viewer empty. Without transparency of this critical legacy and
the possibility of criticism and critique, the canon seems to be more of a myth than a
genuine reality.
At the end of the day, however, given the colonial circumstances that forced the
evolution of Korea’s art history, that art history and resulting canon should be seriously
questioned, not only as markers of national representation, but for the legitimacy of its
representation. Myths and symbols of the past are often used to promote a national
identity, but doubt is often expressed about their actual efficacy,
18
meaning nationalists
often tend to edit their myths to serve their own purposes. Furthermore, the division of
the peninsula after the Korean War decisively robbed South Korean citizens of potential

16
Philip Fisher, “The Future's Past,” New Literary History 6, no. 3 (1975), 594.

17
Jae-ryung Roe, “The Representation of National Identity in Korean Art Exhibitions, 1951-1994” (Ph.D.
diss., New York University, 1995), 125.

18
John Brueilly, Nationalism and the State (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), 151.

138

art representing the ancient regions of Kogury ŏ and Parhae, for example. As a result,
even with the National Treasures what is being portrayed today as Korean art is not
complete. The lack of any information regarding how these objects became the art
objects they are considered today, denies the possibility of any sort of conversation
between viewers and the object. The methodology and chronology with which these
objects are constantly presented in college textbooks and survey books should be re-
evaluated for their efficacy to encourage creativity thus opening the potential for a
conversation to begin. After all, what kind of understanding are the government and the
museums actually providing both foreign and native viewers? Certainly, the critique of a
system of art that has had such a complicated and political history should be dealt with
carefully. As Steiner points out:
Any assault on the canon must therefore begin by unmasking this
fetishized image of cultural sanctity and the fictitious creed of immaculate
classification. The true power of the canon stems not from its various
hierarchical discriminations and orderings, but rather from its mythical
status through which it draws symbolic strength.
19

With this “mythical status,” one is left wondering, if the Japanese association with
many of Korea’s treasures, and thus canon, were more widely known, would Korea’s
traditional art canon be accepted today or pressured to change? And more broadly, are all
art canons, at the end of day, at some level accidents of their country’s political past?

19
Christopher B. Steiner, et. al., “Rethinking the Canon,” in The Art Bulletin 78, no. 2 (1996), 217.
139

Bibliography

Primary Sources [English, Korean, Japanese]

English

Arts Council of Britain. An Exhibition of National Art Treasures of Korea, lent by the
government of the Republic of Korea, Victoria & Albert Museum, 23 March
to 7 May. London: The Arts Council, 1961.

Bain, Alan L. Register to the Papers of Eugene I. Knez (Part 2). Washington D.C.:
National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, 2002.

Chicago Historical Society Archives. “Letters from the Secretary of the Treasury.”
Chicago Historical Society Archives (March 1894): 27-40.

Chōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Ch ōsen]. “Annual Report on the Reforms
and Progress in Korea (1910-1945).” Keij ō: Government-General of Ch ōsen,
1910-1945.

Chōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Ch ōsen]. The New Administration in
Chōsen. Keij ō: Government-General of Ch ōsen, 1921.

Cultural Heritage Administration of South Korea website, accessed 12 May 2009,
www.cha.go.kr

Cultural Resources Research. “List of Structures Designated as National Treasures,”
ed. Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. Civil Information and
Education Section, 175. Washington D.C.: Civil Information and Education
Section, 1946.

Hoover Institution on War Revolution and Peace. East Asian Collection: A Checklist
of Monographs and Periodicals on the Japanese Colonial Empire in the East
Asian Collection, ed. Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace.
Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1981.

“Inspections of Cultural Institutions in Korea.” A memorandum from Major Laurence
Sickman. Arts and Monuments Division, CIE, December 29, 1945.

140

Knez, Eugene I. “Evacuation of Korean Art Treasures During the Korean War.”
Korean Culture 16, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 17-19.

Ministry of Culture and Information, Republic of Korea. Law for the Protection of
Cultural Properties. Seoul: Ministry of Information, 1962.

National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo: Kyoto Preservation
(http://www.tobunken.go.jp/~kokusen/ENGLISH/MEETING/EMINAR/SEMINA
R/ishikawa.html).

Office of Cultural Properties, Ministry of Culture. Cultural Properties of the Republic
of Korea: An Inventory of State-Designated Cultural Properties. Seoul: Office
of Cultural Properties, Ministry of Culture, 1990.

Park Chung Hee. Our Nation's Path: Ideology by Social Reconstruction. Seoul:
Hollym Corporation, 1970.

Republic of Korea. Masterpieces of Korean Art. Boston: Metcalf Co., 1957.

Sekino, Tadashi. Ancient Remains and Relics in Korea: Efforts toward Research and
Preservation: prepared for the fourth bi-annual conference of the Institute of
Pacific Relations to be held at Hangzhou from October 21
st
– November 4,
1931. Tokyo: The Japan Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations, 1931.

Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. Summation of Non-Military Activities in
Japan and Korea. General Headquarters: Supreme Commander for the Allied
Powers, 1945.

UNESCO. The Protection of Movable Cultural Property I and II: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Paris: UNESCO, 1984.

U.S. Department of State. United States Policy Regarding Korea 1834-1950.
Chunch ŏn: Hallym University Press, 1987.

Yanagi, Soetsu. Two Essays. Helena: Archive Bray Foundation, 1952.

Yi Household Museum Collection, Vol. 1, Taisho 1 (1911).

141

Korean

Chōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Korea] and the Mungyobu [Ministry of
Education]. Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu mit mungyobu palhaeng munhwajae
kwangye charyojip [A Collection of Essays Relating to Cultural Properties
submitted by the Ch ōsen Sotokufu and the Ministry of Education]. Seoul and
Tokyo: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu and Ministry of Education, 1992.

Chōsen S ōtokufu. Chos ŏn koj ŏk chosa pogo [An Investigation of Korea’s Koj ŏk].
Seoul: Han’guk inmunkwa hakw ŏn [Korean Humanities Research Institute],
Article 2-5.

Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu pakmulgwan [Museum of General-Government of Korea].
Pakmulgwan chiny ŏlpum dogam, Vol. 1-17 [An Illustrated Catalogue of Items
in the Museum, Vol. 1-17]. Seoul: Minjok Munwa Publishers, 1989.

Ily ǒn. Samguk yusa [Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms][Late 13
th
century], reprint.
Seoul: Min ŭmsa Publishers, 2007.

Kim, Pusik. Samguk sagi [Records of the Three Kingdoms], reprint. Seoul: Ŭllyu
Munhwasa Publishers, 1983.

Kim, W ŏnyong. Han’guk misulsa [History of Korean Art]. Seoul: P ŏmmunsa
Publishers, 1968.

Kuknip chungang pakmulgwan [National Museum of Korea]. “Hou ch’ong ŭnry ŏng
ch’ong palgul 60 chuny ŏn kiny ŏm [Hou Tomb and Ŭnryŏng Tomb
Commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the Excavation Symposium].” In
Hou ch’ong ŭnry ŏng ch’ong palgul 60 chuny ŏn kiny ŏm [Hou Tomb and
Ŭnryŏng Tomb Commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the Excavation
Symposium]. Seoul: Kuknip chungang pakmulgwan [National Museum of
Korea], 2006.

-----. Kuknip chungang pakmulgwan 60 ny ŏn 1945-2005 [Sixty Years of the National
Museum of Korea] Seoul: Kuknip chungang pakmulgwan [National Museum
of Korea], 2006.

-----. Ky ŏre wa hamkke han kuknip pakmulgwan 60 ny ŏn [Sixty Years of the
National Museum. Seoul: Kuknip chungang pakmulgwan [The National
Museum of Korea], 2005.

142

-----. Ku chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu kŏnmul ch’ ŏlg ŏ mit kuknip chungang pakmulgwan
ch’ ŏngsa kaegwan kwally ŏn kisa mo ŭm [The Collection of Articles Regarding
the Destruction of the Former Government-General Building and the New
National Museum of Korea]. Seoul: Kuknip chungang pakmulgwan [The
National Museum of Korea], 1997.

Kuknip minsok pakmulgwan [National Korean Folk Museum]. Ilche ui munhwachae
ch ŏngch’aek py ŏnka semina [A Seminar of the Assessment of the Cultural
Properties Policies during the Colonial Period]. Seoul: Kuknip minsok
pakmulgwan [National Korean Folk Museum], 1996.

Kuknip pakmulgwan [The National Museum]. Kuknip pakmulgwan kaes ŏng
pungwan [The Kaes ŏng Branch Museum of Korea]. Seoul: Kuknip
pakmulgwan [The National Museum], 1949.

Mungyobu [Ministry of Education]. Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe hoe ŭirok [Minutes of the
Cultural Properties Committee], 1952-1962. Seoul: Kukka kirokw ŏn
[National Archives of Korea], 2007.

-----. Han’guk kukbo koj ŏk myŏngs ŭng ch’ ŏnyŏn giny ŏmmul pojon mongrok [A List
of Korea’s National Treasures, Historical Relics, Famous Sites and Natural
Monuments]. Seoul: Ministry of Education, 1956.

Mungyobu and Munhwajae Kwalliguk [Ministry of Education] and [Bureau of
Cultural Propeties]. “Kukpo chae chich ŏng mongrok [List of the Revised
National Treasures],” ed. Mungyobu [Ministry of Education] and Munhwajae
Kwalliguk [Bureau of Cultural Properties]. Seoul: Mungyobu [Ministry of
Education] and Munhwajae Kwalliguk [Bureau of Cultural Properties], 1962.

Munhwa kongbobu [Ministry of Information]. Munhwa kongbo samsip ny ŏn [30
Years of Official Cultural Information]. Seoul: Munhwa kongbobu, 1979.

Munhwajae ch’ ŏng [Cultural Properties Administration]. Munhwajae kwangye
pŏpry ŏng chip [A Manual for Cultural Properties Law]. Taej ŏn: Munhwajae
ch’ ŏng [Cultural Properties Administration], 2001.

Munhwajae Kwalliguk [Bureau of Cultural Properties]. “Opening Remarks.”
Munhwajae 1 (1965).

-----. Ilche chich ŏng munhwajae chae py ŏngka ky ŏlkwa bogos ŏ [A Re-assessment
of the Colonial-designated Cultural Properties]. Seoul: Munhwajae Kwalliguk
[Bureau of Cultural Properties], 1997.

143

-----. Han’guk kukpo koj ŏk my ŏngs ŭng ch’ ŏny ŏn kinyommul pojon ry ŏng [A Catalog
of Korea’s Treasures, Historical Relics, Famous Sites and Natural
Monuments]. Seoul: Mungyobu [Ministry of Education], 1992.

-----. Munhwajae kwalli silmu py ŏllam [Practical Guide to Cultural Heritage
Administration]. Seoul: Munhwajae Kwalliguk [Bureau of Cultural
Properties], 1984.

-----. Kaech ŏng munhwajae pohob ŏp haes ŏl [A Revised Edition of the
Interpretation of the Cultural Properties Law]. Seoul: Munhwa gongbogu
[Ministry of Information] and Munhwajae Kwalliguk [Bureau of Cultural
Properties], 1970.

-----. Uri nara ŭi munhwajae [Cultural Heritage of Korea]: Munhwajae Kwalliguk
[Bureau of Cultural Properties], 1970.

-----. Chich ŏng munhwajae (kukpo/bomul) ilampyo [Registered Cultural Properties
(National Treasures / Treasures) Catalog]. Seoul: Munhwajae Kwalliguk
[Bureau of Cultural Properties], 1969.

-----. Kukpo, pomul chich ŏng munhwajae illampyo [A Catalog of Registered
National Treasures and Treasures]. Ed. Munhwajae kwalliguk [Bureau of
Cultural Properties]. Seoul: Munhwajae Kwalliguk [Bureau of Cultural
Properties], 1969.

Park, Chung Hee. Han’guk kukmin ege koham [A Message to the People of
Korea]. Seoul: Dongs ŏ Publishers, 2005.

Japanese

Bunkazai hogo iinkai [Cultural Properties Committee]. Bunkazai hogo no ayumi [The
Protection of Cultural Properties and Its Path]. Tokyo: Bunkazai hogo iinkai
[Cultural Properties Committee], 1960.

Chōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Ch ōsen]. Ch ōsen s ōtokufu shisei
sanj ūnenshi [30 Years of Government-General of Ch ōsen]. Tokyo:
Meish ō Shuppai Publishers, 1972.

-----. Chōsen h ōmotsu koseki zuroku [Plates of Korean treasures and historic
remains]. Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu, 1938.

144

-----. Chōsen h ōmotsu koseki meish ō tennen kinenbutsu hoz ōn y ōranmoku [A List of
Chōsen’s Treasures, Historical Relics, Famous Sites and Natural Treasures].
Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Ch ōsen], 1937.

-----. Chōsen h ōmotsu koseki meish ō tennen kinenbutsu hoz ōn y ōranmoku [A List of
Chōsen’s Treasures, Historical Relics, Famous Sites and Natural Treasures].
Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Ch ōsen], 1934.

-----. “Chōsen h ōmotsu koseki meish ō tenzen kinenbutsu hozon zei [E: Law for the
Preservation of Treasures, Historic Remains, Scenic Sites, and Natural
Monuments].” Enacted December 1933. In Mungyobu [Ministry of
Education]. Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe hoe ŭirok [Minutes of the Cultural
Properties Committee], 1952-1962. Seoul: Kukka kirokw ŏn [National
Archives], 2007.

-----. Chōsen s ōtokufu shisei nenp ō [The Yearly Records of the Government-General
of Ch ōsen]. Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Ch ōsen], 1926-
1938.

-----. Hakubutsu kanh ō: ch ōsen s ōtokufu hakubutsukan ryuku annai [Government-
General Museum Bulletin]. Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of
Chōsen], 1926.

-----. Koseki oyobi ibutsu toroku daich ō [Registered List of Treasures and Historical
Relics]. Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of Ch ōsen], 1924.

-----. Koseki ch ōsa h ōkoku [Ancient Sites Investigations Reports], vol. 1-19. Keij ō:
Chōsen S ōtokufu, 1918-1937.

-----. Taisho gonendo koseki ch ōsa h ōkoku [An Investigation of Historical Remains
during year Taisho 5]. Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of
Chōsen], 1916.

-----. “Koseki oyobi ibutsu hozon kisoku [E: Regulations on the Preservation of
Ancient Sites and Relics].” Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-General of
Chōsen], Order No. 52. Enacted July 1916.

-----. “Ji setsu rei [E: Temple Law].” Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu [Government-
General of Ch ōsen], Order No. 7. Passed in 1911.

-----. Kankoku shisei nenp ō [Korea Yearly Reports] (1905-1910) (S ŏul: Kokugaku
Shiry ōin [Academic Research Institute]. Vol. for 1909 bound with: Ch ōsen
S ōtokufu shisei nenp ō, Meiji 43-nen [1910]), reprint 1983-1984.

145

-----. Chōsen S ōtokufu shisei nenp ō [The Yearly Records of the Government-General
of Ch ōsen] (Keij ō: Kokugaku Shiry ōin [Academic Research Institute],
(reprint) 1983-1984. Originally published annually: Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu,
1912-1943. Vol. for 1910 bound with: Kankoku shisei nenp ō, dai 3-ji (Meiji
42-nen [1909]).

Chōsen S ōtokufu Gakumukyoku [Education Bureau of the Government-General of
Korea]. Koseki oyobi ibutsu t ōroku daich ō sh ō roku [A Summary of the
Registered List of Historical Remains and Ancient Relics]. Keij ō: Ch ōsen
S ōtokufu Gakumukyoku, 1924.

Chōsen S ōtokufu Hakubutsukan. Hakubutstukan hō [Bulletin of the Government-
General Museum of Ch ōsen] 1, no. 1 (April 1926).

-----. Hakubutsukan chinretsuhin zukan, Vol. 1-17. Keij ō: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu
Hakubutsukan, 1918-1943.

Nai kakugu h ōkyoku [Official Gazette of the Secretary of the Interior]. “Koki
kyubutsu o hozen seshimu [The Protection System of Ancient Remains].”
Edited by Daisegu. Tokyo: Kaiwariba Shoin, 1908.

-----. “Koki ky ūbutsu hozon kata [Edict for the Preservation of Antiquities or literally,
the Means of Preserving Antiquities].” In H ōrei zensho Keio 3 nen 10
gatsu – Meiji 45 nen 7 gatsu [Compilation of Law from October 1868 – July
1912, H ōrei zensho Meijo 4 nen [Daisekan 251]]. Tokyo: Nai kakukan
hōkyoku, 1871.

-----. “Koshaji hozon h ō [Law for the Protection of Ancient Shrines and Temples].”
In H ōrei zensho Keio 3 nen 10 gatsu – Meiji 45 nen 7 gatsu [Compilation of
Law from October 1868 – July 1912, Meiji 30 nen, 6 gatsu 10 ichi [Horitsu
dai 49 go]. Tokyo: Nai kakukan h ōkyoku, 1897.

Resident-General of Korea. “Kyōkō zaisan kanri kitei [E: Regulation for the
Management of Local-school Assets],” enacted on April 23, 1910, Order No.
23.

Sekino, Tadashi. Chōsen bijutsushi [History of Art of Ch ōsen]. Keij ō: Ch ōsen
Shigakkai, 1932; reprint 2003.

146

Secondary Sources [English, Korean, Japanese]

English

Alexander, Mary and Edward P. Alexander. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to
the History and Functions of Museums. Plymouth: Alta Mira Press, 2008.

Alsop, Joseph. The Rare Art Traditions: The History of Art Collecting and Its Linked
Phenomena. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1982.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991.

Appadurai, Arjun. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Armstrong, Charles K. The North Korean Revolution, 1945-1950, Studies of the East
Asian Institute. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.

Barbieri-Low, Anthony J. Artisans in Early Imperial China. Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 2007.

Barlow, Tani E. Formations of Colonial Modernity in East Asia. Durham, N.C.: Duke
University Press, 1997.

Barnet-Sanchez, Holly. “The Necessity of Pre-Columbian Art in the United States:
Appropriations and Transformations of Heritage, 1933-1945.” In Collecting
the Pre-Columbian Past, ed. Elizabeth Hill Boone, 177-208. Washington D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks, 1993.

Barringer, T. J. and Tom Flynn. Colonialism and the Object: Empire, Material
Culture, and the Museum. New York: Routledge Press, 1998.

Bazin, Germain. The Museum Age. New York Universe Books Inc., 1967.

Befu, Harumi. Cultural Nationalism in East Asia: Representation and Identity,
Research Papers and Policy Studies 39. Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of East
Asian Studies University of California, 1993.

Benedict, Burton. “International Exhibitions and National Identity.” Anthropology
Today 17, no. 3 (1991): 5-9.

Bennett, Tony. Pasts Beyond Memory: Evolution, Museums, Colonialism. London;
New York: Routledge Press, 2004.
147

-----. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London:
Routledge Press, 1995.

Berman, Marshall. All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity.
New York: Viking Penguin, 1988.

Bhabha, Homi K. Nation and Narration. London; New York: Routledge Press, 1990.

Bjurstrom, Per. “Interpretations of the Terms National Collection and National
Museum in Scandinavia.” In The Formation of National Collections of Art
and Archaeology, ed. by Gwendolyn Wright, 41-52. Washington, D.C.,
Washington National Gallery of Art, 1996.

Boone, Elizabeth Hill. “Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past: Historical Trends and the
Process of Reception and Use.” In Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past, ed. by
Elizabeth Hill Boone, 315-50. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1993.

Brandt, Kim. Kingdom of Beauty: Mingei and the Politics of Folk Art in Imperial
Japan. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007.

-----. “Objects of Desire: Japanese Collectors and Colonial Korea.” positions: east
asia cultures critique 8, no. 3 (2000): 711-46.

Breuilly, John. Nationalism and the State. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1993.

Bryne, Denis. “Western Hegemony in Archaeological Heritage Management.”
History and Anthropology 5 (1991): 269-76.

Bürger, Peter. Theory of the Avant-Garde, Theory and History of Literature.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.

C.T.C. “Treasure Trove.” Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law,
3rd Ser. 18, no. 4 (1936): 3.

Cahill, James. “Confucian Elements in the Theory of Painting.” In The Confucian
Persuasion, ed. Arthur F. Wright, 115-140. Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1960.

Calinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-Garde, Decadence,
Kitsch, Postmodernism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1987.

148

Caprio, Mark E. “Colonizing Contiguous Peoples: Assimilation Theory and Practice
and Japanese Administration Policies in Korea.” Occasional Papers, no. 10
(2002): 1-68.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Korea: Treaties and Agreement.
Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1921.

Chatterjee, Partha. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative
Discourse. London: Zed Books for the United Nations University, 1986.

Chay, John. “The American Image of Korea to 1945.” In Korea and the United
States: A Century of Cooperation, ed. by Dae-Sook Suh and Youngnok Koo,
53-76. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press, 1984.

Christ, Carol Ann. “’The Sole Guardians of the Art Inheritance of Asia’: Japan at the
1904 St. Louis World's Fair.” In positions: east asia cultures critique, ed.
Gennifer Weisenfeld, 675-710. Durham: Duke University Press, 2000.

Chung, Chai-sik. “Changing Korean Perceptions of Japan on the Eve of Modern
Transformation: The Case of Neo-Confucian Yangban Intellectuals.” In New
Directions in the Study of Meiji Japan, ed. Helen Hardacre and Adam L.
Kern, 343-357. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Chung, Moojeong. “Abstract Expressionism, Art Informel, and Modern Korean Art,
1945-1965.” Ph.D., City University of New York, 2000.

Clifford, James. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography,
Literature, and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Clunas, Craig. Superfluous Things: Material Culture and Social Status in Early
Modern China. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1991.

Commander-in Chief, and Pacific United States Army Forces. “Summation of United
States Army Military Government Activities in Korea.” General Headquarters,
Commander-in Chief. Pacific: United States Army Forces, 1946.

Conant, Ellen P. Challenging Past and Present: The Metamorphosis of Nineteenth-
Century Japanese Art. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006.

Coombes, Annie E. “Ethnography, Popular Culture, and Institutional Power:
Narratives of Benin Culture in the British Museum, 1897-1992.” In The
Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology, ed. Gwendolyn
Wright, 143-58. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1996.

149

Crew, Spencer R. and James I. Sims. “Locating Authenticity: Fragments of a
Dialogue.” Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display,
ed. Ivan Karp, et al. 159-175. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press,
1991.

Cumings, Bruce. North Korea: Another Country. New York: New Press, 2003.

-----. The Origins of the Korean War, Volume I. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1981.

-----. The Origins of the Korean War, Volume II. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1990.

Cuno, James. Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient
Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Davis, Richard H. Lives of Indian Images. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1997.

Duara, Prasenjit. Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of
Modern China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Dudden, Alexis. Japan's Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power. Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i Press, 2005.

Duus, Peter, Ramon Hawley Myers, Mark R. Peattie, and Japan-United States
Friendship Commission. The Japanese Wartime Empire, 1931-1945.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Ebrey, Patricia Buckley. Accumulating Culture: The Collections of Emperor Huizong.
Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008.

Eckert, Carter J., Ki-baik Lee, Young Ick Lew, Michael Robinson, Edward W.
Wagner. Korea Old and New: A History. Seoul: Ilchokak Publishers, 1990.

Elliott, Jeannette Shambaugh, and David L. Shambaugh. The Odyssey of China's
Imperial Art Treasures. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005.

Errington, Shelly. “Progressivist Stories and the Pre-Columbian Past: Notes on
Mexico and the United States.” In Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past, ed.
Elizabeth Hill Boone, 209-50. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1993.

Fenollosa, Ernest. Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art. London: W. Heinemann,
1912.
150

Fisher, Philip. “Darkness and the Demand for Time in Art.” In Art History,
Aesthetics, Visual Studies, ed. Michael Ann Holly and Keith Moxey, 87-104.
Williamstown: Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, 2002.

-----. “The Future's Past.” New Literary History 6, no. 3, History and Criticism II
(Spring 1975): 587-606.

Fitzgibbon, Kate. Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the
Law. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005.

Flores, Patrick D. Painting History: Revisions in Philippine Colonial Art. Dilman:
University of the Philippines, 1998.

Foster, Hal, and Dia Art Foundation. Vision and Visuality, Discussions in
Contemporary Culture 2. Seattle: Bay Press, 1988.

Frank, Barbara E. “Ceramics as Testaments of the Past: Field Research and Making
Objects Speak.” In Museums in the Material World, ed. Simon J. Knell, 60-64.
Oxon: Routledge Press, 2007.

Fujitani, Takeshi. Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

Fumio, Tamamuro. “On the Suppression of Buddhism.” In New Directions in the
Study of Meiji Japan ed. Helen Hardacre, 499-505. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Fyfe, Gordon. Art, Power, and Modernity: English Art Institutions, 1750-1950.
London: Leicester University Press, 2000.

Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar. Alternative Modernities. Durham: Duke University
Press, 2001.

Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983.

Genoways, Hugh H., and Mary Anne Andrei. Museum Origins: Readings in Early
Museum History & Philosophy. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc., 2008.

Gluck, Carol. Japan's Modern Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1985.

Gordon, Christopher and Simon Mundy. European Perspectives on Cultural Policy.
Paris: UNESCO, 2001.

151

Gosden, Chris, and Chantal Knowles. Collecting Colonialism: Material Culture and
Colonial Change. Oxford: Berg, 2001.

Graham, Ian. “Three Early Collectors in Mesoamerica.” In Collecting the Pre-
Columbian Past, ed. Elizabeth Hill Boone, 49-80. Washington D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks, 1993.

Griffis, William Elliot. “The Corean Origin of Japanese Art.” Century Illustrated
Monthly Magazine 25, (December 1882): 224-29.

Guha-Thakurta, Tapati. Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial
and Postcolonial India. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.

-----. The Making of a New 'Indian' Art: Artists, Aesthetics and Nationalism in
Bengal, C.1850-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Guth, Christine. Longfellow's Tattoos: Tourism, Collecting, and Japan. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 2004.

-----. “Some Reflections on the Formation of the Meiji Artistic Canon.” In New
Directions in the Study of Meiji Japan, ed. Helen Hardacre and Adam L.
Kern, 35-41. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

-----. “Japan 1868-1945: Art, Architecture, and National Identity.” Art Journal 55, no.
3 (Autumn 1996): 16-20.

-----. Art, Tea, and Industry: Masuda Takashi and the Mitsui Circle. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1993.

Hahm, Pyung-Choon. “The Korean Perception of the United States.” In Korea and
the United States: A Century of Cooperation, ed. Dae-Sook Suh and
Youngnok Koo, 23-52. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press, 1984.

Han, Sangwoo. “A Critical Review on the Korean Cultural Property Export Policy in
Action.” Korean Studies Quarterly 28, no. 2 (2005): 111-36.

Han, Sangwoo. “Cultural Heritage Management in South Korea.” Ph.D. diss.,
University of Minnesota, 2001.

Handler, Richard. “On Having a Culture: Nationalism and the Preservation of
Quebec's Patrimoine.” In Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and
Material Culture, ed. George W. Stocking, Jr., 192-217. Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

152

Harootunian, Harry D. Overcome by Modernity: History, Culture, and Community in
Interwar Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Harris, Richard. “Myths and Memories: The Role of National Museums in
Representing National Identity in a Post-Colonial Era.” Ph.D., The University
of New Mexico, 2002.

Hein, Hilde S. The Museum in Transition: A Philosophical Perspective. Washington
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000.

Hellmann, Donald C. “The American Perception of Korea: 1945-1982.” In Korea and
the United States: A Century of Cooperation, ed. Dae-Sook Suh and
Youngnok Koo, 77-90. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press, 1984.

Henry, Todd A. “Sanitizing Empire: Japanese Articulations of Korean Otherness and
the Construction of Early Colonial Seoul, 1905-1919.” Journal of Asian
Studies 64, no. 3 (2005): 639-76.

Hight, Eleanor M., and Gary D. Sampson. Colonialist Photography: Imag(in)Ing
Race and Place, Documenting the Image. New York: Routledge Press,
2002.

Hobsbawm, E. J., and T. O. Ranger. The Invention of Tradition, Past and Present.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Hochberg, Julian. “The Representation of Things and People.” In Art, Perception,
and Reality, ed. Julian Hochberg, E. H. Gombrich, and Max Black, 47-94.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1972.

Hoffenberg, Peter H. An Empire on Display. Berkeley: University of California Press,
2001.

Holly, Michael Ann, and Keith Moxey. Art History, Aesthetics, Visual Studies. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Holly, Michael Ann. Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1984.

Hooper-Greenhill, Eileen. Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. New
York: Routledge Press, 2000.

Hulbert, Homer B. The Japanese in Korea: Extracts from the Korea Review, ed. The
Korea Review. Seoul: The Korea Review, 1907.

153

Iriye, Akira. “Japan’s Policies Toward the United States.” In Japan’s Foreign Policy,
1868-1941, A Research Guide, ed. James Morley. New York, 1974.

-----. Pacific Estrangement: Japanese and American Expansion, 1897-1911.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972; reprint Chicago: Imprint
Publications, 1994.

Jansen, Marius B. “Japan and the World.” In New Directions in the Study of Meiji
Japan, ed. Helen Hardacre and Adam L. Kern, 285-292. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Jin, Whuiyeon. “Presentation, Modernism, and Post-Colonialism Korean Informel
and the Reception of the West.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1997.

Jouy, Pierre Louis. “The Collection of Korean Mortuary Pottery in the United States
National Museum.” Washington, D.C.: Annual Report of the Board of
Regents of the Smithsonian Institute, 1890.

Jungmann, Burglind. Painters as Envoys: Korean Inspiration in Eighteenth-Century
Japanese Nanga. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.

Kal, Hong. “The Presence of the Past: Exhibitions, Memories and National Identities
in Colonial and Postcolonial Korea and Japan.” Ph.D. diss., Binghamton
University, State University of New York, 2003.

Kaori, Chino. “Embodying Hope: Colonial Memory and Contemporary Art in Korean
Museums.” Review of Japanese Culture and Society (2003).

Kapferer, Bruce. Legends of People, Myths of State: Violence, Intolerance, and
Political Culture in Sri Lanka and Australia. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution Press, 1988.

Karlsgodt, Elizabeth Campbell. “National Treasures: Cultural Heritage and the
French State During the Second World War.” Ph.D. diss., New York
University, 2002.

Karp, Ivan, Steven Lavine. Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum
Display. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.

Kaufmann, Thomas DaCosta. “National Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Aesthetic
Judgments in the Historiography of Art.” In Art History, Aesthetics, Visual
Studies, ed. Michael Ann Holly and Keith Moxey. Williamstown: Sterling and
Francine Clark Art Institute, 2002.

154

Kavanagh, Gaynor. Making Histories in Museums. Leicester: Leicester University
Press, 1996.

Ketelaar, James Edward. Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its
Persecution. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

Kikuchi, Yuko. Japanese Modernisation and Mingei Theory: Cultural Nationalism
and Oriental Orientalism. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004.

Kim, Insoo. “The Role of the Country of Origin in Its Collection Development in
Other Countries: A Study of Korean Collections in the United States.” M.A.,
Baylor University, 2000.

Kim, Key-Hiuk. The Last Phase of the East Asian World Order: Korea, Japan, and
the Chinese Empire, 1860-1882. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1980.

Kim, Sung Lim. “The “Middle People” And the Arts in the Late Chos ŏn Dynasty.” In
Association for Asian Studies Conference Panel: Marginalized Social Groups
of the Chos ŏn Period and their Role in the Production, Promotion and
Consumption of Painting. Chicago: Association for Asian Studies, 2009.

-----. “Kim Ch ŏng-H ŭi (1786-1856) and Sehando: The Evolution of a Late
Chos ŏn Korean Masterpiece.” Archives of Asian Art 56 (2006).

Kim, Yersu. Cultural Policy in the Republic of Korea. Paris: UNESCO, 1976.

Kim, Youngna. 20th Century Korean Art. London: Lawrence King Publishing Ltd.,
2005.

-----. Modern and Contemporary Art in Korea. Elizabeth: Hollym International
Corporation, 2005.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and
Heritage. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

Knell, Simon J. “Museums, Reality and the Material World.” In Museums in the
Material World, ed. Simon J. Knell, 1-28. Oxon: Routledge Press, 2007.

Koo, Youngnok, and Dae-sook Suh. Korea and the United States: A Century of
Cooperation. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Center for Korean Studies,
1984.

155

Kramer, Jennifer. Switchbacks: Art, Ownership, and Nuxalk National Identity.
Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006.

Krauss, Rosalind E. The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986.

Kultermann, Udo. The History of Art History. Norwalk: Abiris Books, 1993.

Kuo, Jason. Art and Cultural Politics in Postwar Taiwan. Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 2000.

Lang, Karen. Chaos and Cosmos: On the Image in Aesthetics and Art History. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 2006.

-----. “Chaos and Cosmos: Points of View in Art History And Aesthetics.” In Art
History, Aesthetics, Visual Studies, ed. Michael Ann Holly and Keith Moxey,
47-70. Williamstown: Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, 2002.

Lew, Yongick, Byongkie Song, Homin Yang, and Hysop Lim. Korean
Perceptions of the United States: A History of Their Origins and Formation.
Paju: Jinmoondang, 2006.

Littlejohn, Gary. Power and the State. London: Croom Helm, 1978.

Loomba, Ania. Colonialism / Postcolonialism. London: Routledge Press, 2005.

Lowenthal, David and Marcus Binney. Our Past before Us: Why Do We Save It?
London: Temple Smith, 1981.

Lowenthal, David. The Past Is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985.

MacGowan, Dr. D. J. “Recent Russian Archaic Researches Adjacent to Korea and
Remarks on Korean Stone Implements.” The Korean Repository 1 (January
1892): 25-30.

MacKenzie, John M. Orientalism: History, Theory, and the Arts. Manchester:
Manchester University Press 1995.

Malraux, Andre. The Voices of Silence: Man and His Art. New York: Doubleday&
Company, Inc., 1953.

156

Mansfield, Elizabeth. “Art History and Modernism.” In Art History and Its
Institutions: Foundations of a Discipline, ed. Elizabeth Mansfield, 11-27.
London: Routledge Press, 2002.

McCarthy, Conal. Exhibiting Maori: A History of Colonial Cultures of Display.
Oxford: Berg, 2007.

McClellan, Andrew. “Nationalism and the Origins of the Museum in France.” In The
Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology, ed. Gwendolyn
Wright, 29-40. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1996.

McVeigh, Brian J. Nationalisms of Japan: Managing and Mystifying Identity.
Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2004.

Messenger, Phyllis Mauch. “Forging New Partnerships for the Study and Preservation
of the Pre-Columbian Past.” In Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past, ed.
Elizabeth Hill Boone, 291-314. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1993.

Miller, Daniel. “Artefacts and the Meaning of Things.” In Museums in the Material
World, ed. Simon J. Knell. Oxon: Routledge Press, 2007.

Minichiello, Sharon A. Japan's Competing Modernities: Issues in Culture and
Democracy 1900-1930. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998.

Mizoguchi, Koji. Archaeology, Society and Identity in Modern Japan. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Moon, Virginia Han. “Creating Invented Traditions: The Interplay between Art &
Politics in Korea's National Treasures System.” M.A. thesis, Harvard
University 2001.

Murai, Noriko. “Authoring the East: Okakura Kakuzo and the Representations of East
Asian Art in the Early Twentieth Century.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University,
2003.

Narangoa, Li, and Robert Cribb. Imperial Japan and National Identities in Asia,
1895-1945. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003.

Nelson, Robert S., and Richard Shiff. Critical Terms for Art History. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Oakes, Julie Christ. ““Faint Traces and Hints of Color:” Contestation and the
Japanese National Treasure System.” M.A. thesis, University of Chicago,
2000.
157

Ohta, Thaddeus Y. Japanese National Government Publications in the Library of
Congress: A Bibliography. Washington: The Library, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1981.

Oliver, Robert T. Syngman Rhee: The Man Behind the Myth. New York: Dodd Mead
And Company, 1954.

Oppenheim, Robert. Kyongju Things: Assembling Place. Ann Arbor: The University
of Michigan Press, 2008.

Osterhammel, Jürgen. Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. Princeton: Markus
Wiener Publishers, 1995.

Ozkirimli, Umut. Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction. New York:
Palgrave, 2000.

Pai, Hyung Il. “Chronology of Archaeological Art Historical and Preservation
Activities in the Korean Peninsula (1900-1961).” Conference talk given by
Hyung Il Pai, “Constructed Places / Contested Spaces: Critical Geographies in
Korea” May 14-16, 2004, Royce Hall 314 UCLA.

-----. “Nationalism and Preserving Korea's Buried Past: The Office of Cultural
Properties and Archaeological Heritage Management in South Korea.”
Antiquity 73, no. 281 (1999): 618-29.

-----. “The Colonial Origins of Korea's Collected Past.” In Nationalism and the
Construction of Korean Identity, ed. Hyung Il Pai and Timothy R.
Tangherlini, 13-32. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, 1998.

-----. “The Creation of National Treasures and Monuments: The 1916 Japanese Laws
on the Preservation of Korean Remains and Relics and Their Colonial
Legacies.” Korean Studies 25, no. 1 (2001): 72-95.

-----. Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology,
Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Panofsky, Erwin. “The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline.” In The Meaning of
the Humanities, ed. Theodore Meyer Greene, 89-118. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1938.

158

Park, Soon-W ŏn. “Colonial Industrial Growth and the Emergence of the Korean
Working Class.” In Colonial Modernity in Korea, ed. Gi-Wook Shin and
Michael Edson Robinson, 128-60. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1999.

Pearce, Susan M. On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European
Tradition. London: Routledge Press, 1995.

-----. Interpreting Objects and Collections. New York: Routledge Press, 1994.

-----. “Objects as Meaning; or Narrating the Past.” In Objects of Knowledge, ed.
Susan Pearce, 125-40. London: The Athlone Press, 1990.

Peattie, Mark R. and Ramon H. Myers. The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895-1945.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Portal, Jane, and the British Museum. Art under Control in North Korea. London:
Reaktion, 2005.

Preziosi, Donald. “In the Temple of Entelechy: The Museum as Evidentiary Artifact.”
In The Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology, ed.
Gwendolyn Wright, 165-72. Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1996.

-----. “The Art of Art History.” In The Art of Art History: A Critical
Anthology, ed. Donald Preziosi, 507-525. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998.

Victor Rienacker. “Korean Art” Apollo 42 (October 1945): 243-245; 44 (August
1946): 43-45; 44 (September 1946): 63-66.

Reischauer, Edwin O. “Japanese Archeological Work on the Asiatic Continent in
1937 and 1938.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 4 (1939): 77-98.

Robinson, Michael Edson. Cultural Nationalism in Colonial Korea, 1920-1925.
Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1988.

Roe, Jae-ryong. Contemporary Korean Art. St. Leonards: Craftsman House, 2001.

-----. “The Representation of National Identity in Korean Art Exhibitions, 1951-
1994.” Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1995.

Roskill, Mark. What Is Art History? London: Thames and Hudson, 1976.

159

Rydell, Robert W. All the World's a Fair: Visions of Empire at American
International Expositions, 1876-1916. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1984.

Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Random House, 1994.

-----. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978.

Salomon, Nanette. “The Art Historical Canon: Sins of Omission, The Gendered
Subject.” In The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, ed. Donald Preziosi,
344-355. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Saotome, Masahiro. “Sekino Tadashi Revisited: Archaeology of Kogury ŏ under the
Governor General of Ch ōsen.” Abstract for Association for Asian Studies
Conference, 2003.

Schmid, Andre. Korea between Empires 1895-1919. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2002.

Schoeber, Felix. “Re-Writing Art in Taiwan: Secularism, Universalism,
Globalization, or Modernity and the Aesthetic Object.” In Re-Writing Culture
in Taiwan ed. Fang-long Shih, Stuart Thompson and Paul François Tremlett,
154-181. Oxon: Routledge Press, 2009.

Schwartz, Vanessa R., and Jeannene M. Przyblyski. The Nineteenth-Century Visual
Culture Reader. New York: Routledge Press, 2004.

Shih, Fang-long, Stuart Thompson, and Paul-Francois Tremlett. Re-Writing Culture
in Taiwan. Oxon: Routledge Press, 2009.

Shin, Bumshik. Major Speeches by Korea's Park Chung Hee. Seoul: Hollym
Corporation, 1970.

Shin, Gi-Wook, and Michael Edson Robinson. Colonial Modernity in Korea.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Shin, Gi-Wook. Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006.

Shin, Michael D. “Interior Landscapes: Yi Kwangsu's the Heartless and the Origins
of Modern Literature.” In Colonial Modernity in Korea, ed. Gi-Wook Shin
and Michael Edson Robinson, 248-87. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1999.

160

Simmel, Georg. The Philosophy of Money. Trans. Tom Bottomore and David Frisby.
Ed. David Frisby. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, 1978; reprint,
third enlarged edition, London: Routledge Press, 2004.

Simpson, Moira G. Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era.
London: Routledge Press, 1996.

Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism and Modernism. London: Routledge Press, 1998.

-----. “The Nation: Invented, Imagined, Reconstructed?” Millennium: Journal of
International Studies 20, no. 3 (1991): 353-368.

-----. National Identity. Reno: Reno University of Nevada Press, 1991.

-----. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1986.

-----. Theories of Nationalism. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc., 1983.

Sorensen, Clark. “National Identity and the Creation of the Category “Peasant” in
Colonial Korea.” In Colonial Modernity in Korea, ed. Gi-Wook Shin and
Michael Edson Robinson, 288-310. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1999.

Steinberg, David I. “The National Museum of the Republic of Korea.” In Selected
Studies in Korean Art, ed. RAS Transactions Vol. XLIV, 1-70. Seoul: Sahm-
bo Publishing Corporation, 1968.

Steiner, Christopher B., Michael Camille, Zeynop Celik, John Onians, and Adrian
Rifkin. “Rethinking the Canon.” The Art Bulletin 78, no. 2 (June 1996): 198-
217.

Stocking, Jr., George W. “Essays on Museums and Material Culture.” In Objects and
Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture, ed. George W. Stocking,
Jr., 3-14. Madison University: Wisconsin Press, 1985.

Strecker, Jacqueline. “Colonizing Culture, Australia.” In Art History and Its
Institutions: Foundations of a Discipline, ed. Elizabeth Mansfield, 100-112.
London: Routledge Press, 2002.

Takagi, Hiroshi. “The Present, and the Discipline of Art History in Japan.” In The
Twenty-first International Symposium on the Preservation of Cultural
Property. Tokyo: National Museum of Modern Art, 1997.

161

Tanaka, Stefan. “Imaging History: Inscribing Belief in the Nation.” The Journal of
Asian Studies 53, no. 1 (February 1994): 24-44.

-----. Japan's Orient: Rendering Pasts into History. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1993.

The Academy of Korean Studies. Directory of Researchers in Korean Studies. Seoul:
The Academy of Korean Studies, 1979.

Tomio, Kentaro. “Visions of Modern Space: Expositions and Museums in Meiji
Japan.” In New Directions in the Study of Meiji Japan, ed. Helen Hardacre
and Adam L. Kern, 719-733. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Trachtenberg, Alan. “Contesting the West.” In Museums in the Material World, ed.
Simon J. Knell, 292-300. London: Routledge Press, 2007.

Trigger, Bruce G. A History of Archaeological Thought. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1996.

Tseng, Alice Y. The Imperial Museums of Meiji Japan: Architecture and the Art of
the Nation. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008.

Vickers, Edward. “Re-Writing Museums in Taiwan.” In Re-Writing Culture in
Taiwan, ed. Fang-long Shih, Stuart Thompson and Paul François Tremlett, 69-
101. Oxon: Routledge Press, 2009.

Vickery, Jonathan. “Organising Art: Constructing Aesthetic Value.” In Museums in
the Material World, ed. Simon J. Knell, 214-229. Oxon: Routledge Press,
2007.

Weaver, Sir Lawrence. Exhibitions and the Arts of Display. London: Country Life
Ltd., 1925.

Wendelken-Mortensen, Cherie. “Living with the Past: Preservation and Development
in Japanese Architecture and Town Planning.” Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 1994.

Williams, Elizabeth A. “Collecting and Exhibiting Pre-Columbian in France and
England, 1870-1930.” In Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past, ed. Elizabeth
Hill Boone, 123-40. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1993.

Williams, Patrick, and Laura Chrisman. Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial
Theory: A Reader. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.

162

Williams, Robert. Art Theory: A Historical Introduction. Malden: Blackwell, 2004.

Winther-Tamaki, Bert. Art in the Encounter of Nations: Japanese and American
Artists in the Early Postwar Years. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press,
2001.

Wright, Arthur F. The Confucian Persuasion. Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1960.

Wright, Gwendolyn. “Introduction.” In The Formation of National Collections of Art
and Archaeology, ed. Gwendolyn Wright, 9-14. Washington D.C.: National
Gallery of Art, 1996.

-----. “National Culture under Colonial Auspices: The École Française D'extrême-
Orient.” In The Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology,ed.
Gwendolyn Wright, 127-142. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1996.

Yang, Homin. “The Perception of the United States During the Japanese Colonial
Period.” In Korean Perceptions of the United States: A History of Their
Origins and Formation, ed. Young Ick Lew, Byong-kie Song, Ho-min Yang,
and Hy-sop Lim, 209-306. Paju: The Asan Foundation, 2006.

Yi, Songmi. Korean Landscape Painting: Continuity and Innovation through the
Ages. Seoul: Hollym International Corporation 2006.

Young, Robert J. C. Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003.

Zavala, Iris M. Colonialism and Culture: Hispanic Modernisms and the Social
Imaginary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992.

Korean

An, Hwijun. “Kim chew ŏn paksa wa kim w ŏnyong kyosu ŭi misul sach ŏk kiy ŏ [The
Lives of Professors Kim Chew ŏn and Kim W ŏnyong].” Misulsa nondan [Art
Criticism] 13 (2001): 13.

-----. “Chos ŏn wangjo sidae ŭi hwaw ŏn [Painters of the Chos ŏn Dynasty].” Han’guk
munhwa [Korean Culture], no. 9 (1988): 147-178.

163

Chang, Ki-in. “Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu ch’ ŏngsa [Government-General of Korea
Headquarters].” K ŏnch’uk [Architecture] 35, no. 2 (1991): 44-50.

Chi, By ŏngmok. “Munhwa yumul pohob ŏp ŭl tonghae pon pukhan ŭi munhwa yusan
[Cultural Property in the Territory of the North Korea Considered From ‘The
Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on Protection of Cultural
Property’].” Munhwajae [Cultural Properties] 36 (2003): 39-67.

Cho, Hangrae. “Chŏnchaeng kiny ŏmgwanŭn kuknip chungang pakmulgwan
ŭro hwalyong haeya – yet chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu k ŏnmul ch’ ŏlg ŏ wa kwally ŏn
hay ŏ [From a War Memorial to a National Museum – The Former Ch ōsen
S ōtokufu Building Destruction].” Hy ŏndaesa y ŏn’gu [Modern History
Studies] 3, no. 10 (1993): 353-356.

Cho, Hy ŏnjung. “Kaej ŏng munhwajae pohob ŏp haes ŏl [Explanations of the Revised
Protection of Cultural Properties Act.]” Munhwajae [Cultural Properties] 34
(2001): 222-67.

Cho, Puk ŭn. Ir ŏ bŏrin uri hwachae r ŭl ch’acha [In Search of Our Lost Cultural
Treasures]. Seoul: Minsokw ŏn, 2004.

Cho, Yuch ŏn. “Ilche ŭi kobun palgul mit dogul siltae.” In Ilche ŭi munhwajae
ch ŏngchaek py ŏngka semina [A Seminar on the Assessment of the Cultural
Policies of the Japanese Colonial Period], by the Munhwajae Kwalliguk, 41-
60. Seoul: Munhwajae Kwalliguk, 1996.

Ch'oe, Hyej ŏng. “Ilcheha py ŏngyang chi ŏk ŭi koj ŏk chosa sa ŏp kwa koj ŏk pojonhoe
ŭi hwaldong [Historical Remains Investigations and Protection around the
Py ŏngyang Region during the Japanese Colonial Period].” M.A. thesis, Pusan
National University Graduate School, 2006.

Ch'oe, S ŏky ŏng. Han’guk pakmulgwan ŭi ‘k ŭndaej ŏk’ yusan [“Modern” Heritage of
Korean Museums]. Seoul: S ŏkyŏng Munhwasa Publishers, 2004.

-----. Han’guk k ŭndae ŭi pakramhoe - pakmulgwan [The Exhibitions and Museums in
Modern Korea]. Seoul: S ŏkyŏng Munhwasa Publishers, 2001.

-----. “Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu pakmulgwan ŭi ch’ulhy ŏn kwa ‘silminjij ŏk kihoek’”
[The Colonial Opportunity in the Formation of the Government-General
Museum].” Hos ŏsahak 27 (1999): 93-125.

Ch'oe, Wansu. Chŏn Hy ŏngp'il. Seoul: Munhwach’eyukbu, han’guk munhwa yesul
chinh ŭng w ŏn [Ministry of Sports and Culture, Korea Arts & Culture
Education Service], 1996.
164

Ch'oe, Y ŏl. “K ŭndae misul kij ŏm y ŏn’gusa [A Study on the Starting Point of
Modern Art].” Han’guk k ŭndae misul sahak [Modern Korean Art History
Studies] 13 (2004): 7-39.

-----. Han’guk k ŭndae misul pipy ŏngsa [History of Criticism of Korean Modern Art].
Seoul: Y ŏrhwadang Publishers, 2001.

-----. “1928-1932 ny ŏngan misul nonjaeng y ŏn’gu – my ŏt my ŏt danche r ŭl dull ŏssan
pipy ŏng ŭl chungsim ŭro [A Study of the Art Discourse in 1928-1932: A Few
Thoughts on a Critique.” Han’guk k ŭndae misul sahakhoe [Korean Modern
Art History Association] 1 (1994): 124-169.

-----. Han’guk hy ŏndae misul undongsa [History of the Trends of Korean Modern
Art]. Seoul: Tolpaegae, 1991.

Ch'oe, Yunch ŏng. “1962 ny ŏn chej ŏng munhwajae pohobop y ŏn’gu [An Analysis of
the 1962 Designated Cultural Properties Law].” M.A.thesis, [Sungshin
Womens' University Graduate School], 2007.

Chŏng, Chaehun, “ Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe yaksa [A Concise History of the Cultural
Properties Committees]” Munhwajae [Cultural Properties] 18 (1985): 1-18.

Chŏng, Kyuhong. Uri munhwajae sunansa [The History of the Difficulties of
Our Country's Cultural Heritage]. Seoul: Hagy ŏn Munhwasa Publishers, 2005.

Chŏng, Much ŏng. “1950 ny ŏndae miguk e sogae doen han’guk misul [Korean Art
Represented in the United States in the 1950s].” Han’guk k ŭndae misul sahak
[Korean Modern Art History Studies] 14 (2005): 7-41.

-----. “Mi kunch ŏnggi ŭi munhwa ch ŏngch’aek kwa misul gye [The Cultural
Policies and the Art World under the U.S. Military Government in Korea].”
Misulsa y ŏn’gu [Art History Studies], no. 18 (2004): 147-166.

-----. “Ch’usang pyohy ŏn chu ŭi wa ch ŏngch’i [Abstract Expressionism and
Politics].” S ŏyang misulsa hakhoe nonmun chip [Western Art Society
Collection] 15, no. 1 (2001), 111-131.

-----. “Han’guk chŏnchaeng kwa s ŏgu misul [The Korean War and the Art
World].” Sŏyang misulsa hakhoe nonmun chip [Western Art Society
Collection] 14, no. 1 (2000): 49-68.

165

Han’guk haksul chinh ŭng chaedan [The Foundation for the Promotion of Korean
Studies]. Ilche sikminji ch ŏngchaek y ŏn’gu nonmun chip [A Compilation of
the Studies on the Policies of the Japanese Colonial Period]. Seoul: Han’guk
haksul chinh ŭng chaedan [The Foundation for the Promotion of Korean
Studies], 1995.

Hatsuda T ōru. Paekhwaj ŏm – tosi munhwa ŭi k ŭndae [Department Stores –
City Culture and Its Modernity]. Seoul: Nonhy ŏng Publishers, 2003.

H ŏ, Y ŏngs ŏp. Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu, kŭ ch’ ŏngsa k ŏllip ŭi iyagi [The Story of
Government-General of Korea Headquarters]. Seoul: Hanul Publishers, 1996.

Hong, S ŏkryul, Taegyun Park, Wanb ŏm Lee, Chunsik Lee, and Hy ŏna Mun. Pak
ch ŏnghŭi sidae y ŏn’gu [A Study on Park Chung Hee Era]. Seoul: Han’guk
ch ŏngsin munhwa y ŏn’gu [The Academy of Korean Studies], 2002.

Hong, S ŏnpyo. “Chos ŏn hugi ŭi hoehwa aehopungjo wa kampy ŏng hwaldong
[Popular Trends in the Painting and Criticism of the Late Chos ŏn].” Misulsa
nondan [Art Criticism], no. 5 (1997): 119-138.

Hwang, Suy ŏng. Ilchegi munhwajae pihaeng charyo [Damages to Cultural
Treasures]. Seoul: Han’guk misul sahak hy ŏphoe [Korean Art History
Association], 1973.

Ilmin Gallery. Munhwaj ŏk kiy ŏk: yanagi muneyosi ka palgy ŏn han chos ŏn k ŭrigo
ilbon [Cultural Memory - Chos ŏn and the Japan of Yanagi Muneyoshi].
Seoul: Ilmin Gallery, 2006.

Kang, Mins ŏng. “Han’guk k ŭndae sinmun sos ŏl saphwa y ŏn’gu [A Study on Novel
Illustrations in Korean Modern Newspapers: From 1910s to 1920s].” M.A.
thesis, Ehwa Womans University Graduate School, 2002.

Kang, Sangjung. Orietallij ŭm ŭl n ŏm ŏs ŏ [Beyond Orientalism]. Seoul: Isan
Publishing, 1997.

Ki, Hyeky ŏng. “1920-1930 ny ŏndae han’guk k ŭndae misul kwa munhak ŭi
kyoryusange kwanhan yŏn’gu” [The Interchange Between Korean Modern
Art and Literature during the 1920s and 1930s in Korea].” M.A. thesis,
Hongik University, 1999.

166

Kim, Chinsong. “K ŭndae misul non ŭi sasang ch ŏk paegy ŏng kwa hy ŏngs ŏng
kwach ŏng: munhwa py ŏndong kwa misul pipy ŏng ŭi dae ŭng [The
Ideological Background and Formation of Modern Korean Art Theory:
Changes in Culture and the Artistic Reactions].” In Sigak kwa ŏnŏ [Vision and
Language], ed. Kim, Chins ŏng, 437-440. Seoul: Misul pipy ŏng yŏn’guhoe
[Art Criticism Institute], 1994.

Kim, Chiy ŏng. “18 segi hwaw ŏn ŭi hwaldong kwa hwaw ŏn hwa ŭi py ŏnhwa [The
Activities and Changes of the 18
th
Century Hwaw ŏn Painters.” Han’guksa non
[Korean Theory of History] 32 (1994): 1-68.

Kim, Ch ŏngdong. “Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu ch’ ŏngsa chachone kwanhan che ŏn
[Suggestions on the Government-General of Korea Headquarters Building].”
Konch’uk [Architecture] 35, no. 3 (1991): 76-77.

Kim, Dalsu. Ilbon sok ŭi han’guk munhwa yuch ŏk ŭl ch’ajas ŏ [Finding Korean
Cultural Treasures in Japan]. Seoul: Daew ŏnsa Publishers, 1997.

Kim, Hongnam, and Kim, Youngna. “Misul saw a misul kwan [Art History and
Museums].” Misul sahak [Art History Studies] 6 (1992): 23-50.

Kim, Hongy ŏl. “Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe ŭi y ŏkhale kwanhan kich’o ch ŏk punsik [A
Basic Analysis on the Operation of the Cultural Heritage Committee].”
Munhwajae 38 (2005): 421-474.

-----. “Munhwajae wiw ŏnhoe s ŏnmun chosa puns ŏk [An Analysis of the Survey of
the Cultural Heritage Committee].” Munhwajae 37 (2004): 405-444.

Kim, Int ŏk. Sikminchi sidae k ŭndae konggan kuknip pakmulgwan [The National
Museum as a Modern Space During the Colonial Era]. Seoul: Institute of National
Studies, 2007.

-----. “Ilcheha ŭi chachuch ŏkin uri munhwa chikigi [The Willful Keeping
of Our Nation’s Treasures during the Japanese Colonial Period].” Munhwa
yesul [Korean Culture & Art Journal] (2003): 17-22.

Kim, Kihong. “Ch ŏngcho munin hwapung ŭi doip kwa suyong [Literary
Culture: Its Influence and Transmission under King Ch ŏngjo].” Yesul nonmun
chip [Journal of the National Academy of Arts] 32 (1993): 89-123.

167

Kim, Mich ŏng. “Han’guk aengpor ŭmel kwa daehan minguk misul ch ŏlamhwe
– 1960 nyŏndae ch’oban ch ŏngch’ich ŏk byŏnhyŏkki r ŭl chungsim ŭro [Korean
Informel and the Republic of Korea’s Art Expositions – A Focus on the Politics of
the Early 1960s].” Han’guk misul sahak [The Korean Art History Study] 12
(2004): 301-42.

Kim, Paek Y ŏng. “Ilche ha s ŏul es ŏ ŭi sikmin kw ŏly ŏk ŭi chibae ch ŏlyak kwa dosi
konggan ŭi ch ŏngch’i hak [Politics of Urban Space in Colonial Seoul, 1904-
1945].” Ph.D. diss., Seoul National University, 2005.

Kim, Sangy ŏp. “Ilche kangch ŏm ki ŭi ko misul pum yutong kwa ky ŏngme
[Circulation and Auction of Antiques During the Period under the Rule of
Japanese Imperialism].” In K ŭndae misul y ŏn’gu [Modern Art Studies]. Seoul:
Kuknip hyŏndae misul kwan [National Museum of Contemporary Art], 2006:
151-72.

Kim, S ŏkman. “Ku Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu ch’ ŏngsa ŭi konggan kwa hy ŏngtae
puns ŏke kwanhan y ŏn’gu [A Study on the Spatial and Formal Analysis of the
Ex-Chos ŏn Government General Building].” Taehan g ŏnch’uk hakhoe
nonmun chip [Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea] 13, no. 4 (1997):
53-63.

Kim, S ŏngki. Mod ŏniti ran mu ŏt inga [Reflections on Modernity]. Seoul: Minumsa
Publishers, 1994.

Kim, W ŏnyong. “Icho ŭi hwaw ŏn [Painters of the Yi Dynasty].” Hyangto s ŏul
[Hyangto Seoul] 11 (1961): 59-72.

-----. Han’guk mi ŭi tamgu [An Examination on the Aesthetics of Korea]. Seoul:
Y ŏrhwadang Publishers, 1996.

Kim, Yongch’ ŏl. “Han’guk k ŭndae tongyang hoehwa mongryong ch’aehwabop
[Modern Eastern Style Painting of Korea and Hazy-Form Style Depiction in
Modern Japanese Painting].” Han’guk k ŭndae misul sahak [Study of Korean
Modern Art History] 16 (2006): 117-49.

Kim, Yongjun. Chos ŏn misul taeyo [An Outline of Chos ŏn Art]. Seoul: Ulyu
Munhwa Publishing, 1949.

Kim, Youngna. Han’guk k ŭndae misul kwa sigak munhwa [Korean Modern Art and
Visual Art Movement]. Seoul: Chohy ŏngkyoyuk Publishers, 2002.

168

-----. “’Pakramhoe’ ran ŭn ch ŏnsi konggan 1893 ny ŏn sikago manguk pakramhoe wa
chos ŏn kwan ch ŏnsi” ['Universal Exposition' as an Exhibitionary Space:
Korean Exhibition at the 1893 World Columbian Exposition, Chicago.”
Sŏyang misul sahakhoe nonmun chip [Collection of Papers on Western Art
History Studies] 13 (2000): 75-111.

-----. 20 segi ŭi han’guk misul [20th Century Korean Art]. Seoul: Yeky ŏng
Publishers, 1998.

-----. Chohy ŏng kwa sadae ch ŏngsin [Societal Attitudes and the Arts]. Seoul:
Y ŏrhwadang Publishers, 1998.

-----. “Haebang ihu han’guk hy ŏndae misul ŭi chongae – ch ŏntong kwa s ŏgu
misul suyong ŭi kald ŭng mit panghyang mosaek” [Modern Korean Art After
Liberation – The Conflict between Traditional Art and Western Influences and
the Resulting Outcome].” Misulsa y ŏn’gu [Art History Studies] 9 (December
1995): 291-313.

-----. “1930 ny ŏndae ŭi han’guk k ŭndae hoehwa [Korean Modern Paintings in
1930s].” Misulsa y ŏn’gu [Study on Art History] 7 (December 1993): 31-46.

Ko, Chaehui. Munhwajae pihwa [Secrets of the Cultural Properties]. 2 vols. Seoul:
Tolbaegae Publishers, 1996.

Ko, Misuk. Han’guk ui k ŭndaes ŏng, k ŭ kiw ŏn ŭl ch’ajas ŏ [Korea’s Modernity:
Finding the Origins]. Seoul: Ch’aek sesang [Book World Publishing], 2001.

Kuknip kukŏw ŏn [National Language Institute]. “Kukpo” in Pyochun kuk ŏ dae saj ŏn
[Great Standard Korean Language Dictionary], 382. Seoul: Doosan Donga
Publishers, 1999.

Kw ŏn, Haengga. “Chos ŏn myŏnghwa ŭi palgy ŏn: O pongbin ŭi chos ŏn misulgwan
chuch’oe kos ŏhwa ch ŏn [Korean Famous Paintings and their Discovery: O
Pongbin and the Art Exhibitions of Old Paintings].” Paper presented at the
Ilhan k ŭndae misulsa simpochi ŏm tosi wa sigak kongan – 1930 ny ŏndae ŭi
tonggy ŏng kwa sŏul [Japan-Korea Modern Art History Symposium, Space of City
and View – 1930s Tokyo and Seoul]. Meichi misul hakhoe han’guk k ŭndae
misulsa hakhoe [Meiji Art Studies Institute and Korean Modern Art Institute],
2008 nyŏn 10 w ŏl 18 il [October 18, 2008].

Kw ŏn, Y ŏngpil et al. Han’guk ŭi mi r ŭl dasi ilgn ŭnda [Re-Reading the Beauty
of Korea]. P'aju: Tolpaegae, 2005.

169

Lee, Kwangpyo. Kukpo iyagi [The Story of National Treasures]. Seoul: Random
House Joongang, 2005.

Lee, Nany ŏng. Pakmulgwan ch’anggo chigi [The Gatekeeper of the Museum].
Seoul: T'ongch' ŏn Munhwasa Publishers, 2005.

Lee, Sanghae. “T ŭk chip – S ŏul 600 ny ŏn ŭi k ŏnch’uk ch ŏk sak ŏn dŭl:
kyŏngbokkung pogw ŏn kwa yet chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu ch’ ŏngsa ch’ ŏlg ŏ
munchae [The Issues of Restoring the Ky ŏngbok Palace and Ky ŏnghŭi Palace
and Removing the Old Governor-General Building].” K ŏnch’uk [Architecture]
35, no. 2 (1991): 52-55.

Lee, Sunja. “Ilche kangch ŏmgi koj ŏk chosa ŏp yŏn’gu [A Study of Koj ŏk
Investigations During the Japanese Colonial Period].” Ph.D. diss.,
Sookmyung Womens’ University, 2007.

Lee, W ŏnbok. “Kansong ch ŏnhyŏng pil kwa k ŭ ŭi sujip munhwajae (misul ŭi kkot,
chos ŏn hoehwa r ŭl chungsim ŭro) [Ch ŏn Hy ŏng-pil and His Collection:
Paintings in the Chos ŏn Period].” K ŭndae misul y ŏn’gu [A Study of Modern
Art], (2006): 195-221.

Mok, Suhyŏn. “1930 ny ŏndae ŭi ky ŏngs ŏng ŭi ch ŏnsi konggan [Ky ŏngs ŏng
Exhibition Space in 1930s].” Personal paper.

-----. “Ilcheha pakmulgwan ŭi hyŏngs ŏng kwa k ŭ ŭimi [The Characteristics and
Meaning of Japanese Colonial Era Museums].” M.A. thesis, Seoul National
University Graduate School, 2000.

-----. “Ilcheha iwangga pakmulgwan ŭi sikminchich ŏk s ŏnggyŏk [The Colonial
Attitudes of the Royal Yi Household Museum under Japanese Colonial
Rule].” Misulsahak y ŏn’gu [Art History Studies] 227 (2000): 81-104.

Mun My ŏngdae. Han’guk misulsahak ŭi iron kwa pangbop [Theory and Method of
Korean Art History]. Seoul: Y ŏrhwadang Publishers, 1984.
O, Sech’ang, K ŭny ŏk s ŏhwa ching [The Collection of Paintings of Korea (literally, the
Land of Roses-of-Sharon)]. Seoul: Hangmun’gak, 1970; Kin’iki shogacho
(originally published 1928). Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1971.
O, Kwangsu. Han’guk hy ŏndae misul pipy ŏngsa [History of the Criticism of Korean
Modern Art]. Seoul: Mijin Publishers, 1998.

170

-----. Hang’uk hy ŏndae misulsa: doip kwa ch ŏngch’ae es ŏ on ŭl ŭi sanghwang kkachi
[Modern Korean Art History: From the Beginnings to the Present]. Seoul:
Y ŏrhwadang Publishers, 1995.

O, Setak. Munhwajae pojonbŏp w ŏnron [The Principles of the Law for Protection of
Cultural Properties]. Seoul: Churyus ŏng Publishers], 2005.

-----. “Ilche ŭi munhwajae ch ŏngch’aek [Japan's Policy of Cultural Treasures].”
Munhwajae [Cultural Properties] 29 (1996): 255-275.

Ota, Hideharu. “Ilbon ŭi sikminji chos ŏn es ŏ ŭi koj ŏk chosa wa s ŏnggwak
ch ŏngch’aek [A Study on Japan’s Survey of the Korean Historic Remains and
Their Fortress Castle Policy in Korea during Their Colonial Rule].”
M.A.thesis, Seoul National University Graduate School], 2002.

P ŏphak y ŏn’guso ch’ungbuk daehakyo [The Law Institute of Ch’ungbuk University].
Han’guk munhwajae pohobop ŭi pakch ŏn kwach ŏng kwa ch ŏngbi
panghyang [The Development-Process and Equipment-Orientation of the Law
for Protection of Cultural Properties in Korea]. Taej ŏn: Munhwajae ch’ ŏng
[Cultural Heritage Administration], 2002.

O, Y ŏngch’an. “Nangnang daebanggun chibae sery ŏk yŏn’gu [A Study of the Impact
of the Lelang Commanderies].” Ph.D., diss, Seoul National University
Graduate School, 2005.

Park, Carey. “Chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu pakmulgwan s ŏhwa k’ ŏlleksy ŏn kwa sujipga d ŭl
[Collections and Collectors of Paintings and Calligraphic Works at
Government-General of Korea Headquarters Museum (Museum of the Joseon
Colonial Government)].” In K ŭndae misul y ŏn’gu [Modern Art Studies],
2006: 173-194.

Park, Hyoŭn. “17-19 segi chos ŏn hwadan kwa misul sijang ŭi danw ŏns ŏng
[Pluralistic Traits of the Art Market in Joseon Painting from 17th to 19th
Century].” K ŭndae misul y ŏn’gu [Modern Art Studies] (2006): 121-150.

-----. “18 segi chos ŏn munin d ŭl ŭi hoehwa mojip hwaldong kwa hwadan [Literati
Collectors and Painters of the 18th Century in Joseon].” Misul sahak y ŏn’gu
[Art History Studies], no. 233-234 (2002): 139-185.

-----. “Chos ŏn hugi munin d ŭl ŭi hoehwa mojip hwaldong y ŏn’gu [The Collecting
Activities of the Literati of Late Chos ŏn].” Ph.D.diss., Hongik University
Graduate School, 1999.

171

Park, J ŏngin. “Wigi ilbal kukka anbo 2: kukbo che 1 ho kukkun changmy ŏn [The
Dangers of National Security: The Case of National Treasure Number 1].”
Han’guk nondan [Korea Forum] 77 (1996): 138-141.

Park, Mihwa. “1970 ny ŏndae ihu ŭi han’guk misul sijang kwa paer ŏdaim ŭi py ŏnhwa
[The Change in the Korean Art Market and Artistic Paradigm since the
1970s].” K ŭndae misul y ŏn’gu [Modern Art History Studies] (2006): 241-257.

Park, Y ŏngtaek. “Pak Ch ŏng H ŭi sidae ŭi munhwa wa misul [Culture and Art in the
Era of Park Chung Hee].” Han’guk k ŭndae misul sahak [Korean Modern and
Contemporary Art History Study] (2005): 207-241.

Sato Doshin. “K ŭndae ilbon kwanj ŏn ŭi s ŏngrip kwa ch ŏngae [The Establishment of
an Art Exhibition Supervised by the Government in Modern Japan and Its
Development].” Han’guk k ŭndae misul sahak [Modern Korean Art History
Studies] 15 (2005): 28.

Shin, Pongs ŭng. Kukbo ka doen chos ŏn maksabal [The Items of Daily Life in the
Chos ŏn Dynasty that became Korea’s National Treasures]. Seoul: Salm kwa
kkum Publishers, 2001.

Sohn, J ŏngmok. “Ilcheha s ŏul ŭi dosi hyehoek kwa k ŏnch’uk ch ŏk ipji [The
Panorama of Seoul City Planning under Japanese Colonial Rule].” K ŏnch’uk
[Architecture] 35, no. 2 (1991): 34-38.

Song, Dongk ŭn, Hongs ŏk Yang, and S ŏkyŏng Ch'oe. Munhwa kwangwang kwa
pakmulgwan [Cultural Tourism and Museums]. Seoul: Minsokw ŏn
Publishers, 2002.

Song, Minku. “Ku chos ŏn ch’ongdokbu ch’ ŏngsa ch’ ŏlg ŏ munchae [About
Government-General of Korea Headquarters Building Removal].” K ŏnch’uk
[Architecture] 35, no. 3 (1991): 72.

S ŏul daehakkyo illyuhak y ŏn’guhoe [Anthropological Society at Seoul National
University]. Han’guk illuhak ŭi s ŏnggwa wa ch ŏnmang [Korea’s
Anthropology, Past and Future]. Seoul: Chipmundang Publishers, 1998.

S ŏul sahoekwahak yŏn’guso [Seoul Social Sciences Institute]. K ŭndaes ŏng ŭi
ky ŏnggye mul ch’ajas ŏ [Finding the Economic Aspect in Modernism]. Seoul:
S ŏul sahoekwahak yŏn’guso [Seoul Social Sciences Institute], 1997.

172

U Dongs ŏn. “Sekkino tadasi ŭi han’guk ko k ŏnch’uk chosa wa pojon e daehan
yŏn’gu [A Study on Tadashi Sekino’s Research and Conservation for Korean
Traditional Architecture.” Han’guk k ŏnch’uk hakhoe nonmun chip [A
Collection of Essays for the Society of Korean Architecture] 12 no. 7 (2006):
135-146.

Yang, Hy ŏnmi. “Pakmulgwan y ŏn’gu wa pakmulgwan ch ŏngch’aek – munhwa
yŏn’gu ŭi kwanch ŏm es ŏ pon uri nara pakmulgwan y ŏn’gu wa ch ŏngch’aek
[Museum Studies and Museum Policy - a Critical Study on the Korean
Museum Studies and Museum Policy from the Viewpoint of Cultural
Studies].” Ph.D. diss., Hongik University Graduate School, 2001.

Yi Kuy ŏl. Han’guk munhwajae sunansa [The Tragedy of Korea’s Cultural
Treasures]. Seoul: Tolpegae Publishers, 1996.

Yi, Ky ŏngs ŏng. Han’guk k ŭndae misul y ŏn’gu [A Study on Korean Modern Art].
Seoul: Tonghwa Ch’ulpansa Publishers, 1975.

Yu, S ŭnghun. “Ilche sigi munhwajae pohob ŏp ŭi ‘chungch ŏm pohoju ŭi’ wa
‘pogwalch ŏk popche’ e kwanhay ŏ [A Study on the Protective Principle in
Priority and Inclusive Legislation of the Law for Protection of Cultural
Properties During the Japanese Colonization].” Y ŏksa minsokhak [Historical
Folk Studies], 2003: 204-316.

-----. “Hy ŏnjang sok ŭi munhwajae ch ŏngch’aek [Cultural Properties Policy
Today].” In Han’guk munhwajae pohobŏp ŭi palch ŏn kwach ŏng kwa ch ŏngbi
panghyang [The Development-Process and Equipment-Orientation of the Law
for Protection of Cultural Properties in Korea], 19-62. Ch’ ŏngju: Ch’ungbuk
National University, 2002.

Yun, Huisun. Chos ŏn misul y ŏn’gu: minjok misul e daehan tansang [A Study of
Chos ŏn Art: From the Perspective of Minjok (Folk) Art]. Seoul:
Seoul Sinmunsa Publishing, 1946.

Yun, P ŏmmo. “Chos ŏn sidae malgi ŭi sidae sanghwang kwa misul hwaldong [Society
in Late Chos ŏn Period and Its Art Activities] “ Han’guk k ŭndae misul sahak
[Studies on Modern Art History], no. 1, Seoul: Ch’ ŏngnyŏnsa Publishers
(1994): 46-82.

-----. Han’guk k ŭndae misul: Sidae ch ŏngsin kwa ch ŏngch’es ŏng ŭi tamgu [Korean
Modern Art: A Study of the Attitudes and Character of the Times]. Seoul: Han’gil
Art, 2000.

173

Yun, Sejin. “K ŭndaech ŏk ‘misul’ kaeny ŏm ŭi hy ŏngs ŏng kwa misul insik – 1890
nyŏn put ŏ 1910 nyŏndae kkaji rŭl chungsim ŭro [Formation of the Concept
'Fine Art' and Recognition of Fine Art - Mainly from 1890's to 1910's].”
M.A.thesis, Seoul National University Graduate School, 1999.

Japanese

Akaboshi Gor ō and Nakamaru Heiichir ō. Chōsen no yakimono: ri ch ō [Korean
Pottery: The Yi Dynasty]. Kyoto: Tank ō shinsha, 1965.

Fukusawa, Yukichi. Seiy ō jij ō [The Western Situation], Vol. 1-3. Tokyo: Kei ō Gijuku
Shuppankyoku, 1873.

Henchosha Sugihara Sadakichi. Ch ōsen Kokuho Taikan [Great Book of Korea’s
Treasures]. Tokyo: Dobunkan, 1911.

Keishy ū kinkantsuka to so ih ŏ [The Gold Crown Tomb and Other Ancient Goods].
Minzoku bunkashi [People’s Culture Publishing], 1982.

Seiky ū gakkai [Seiky ū Academic Association]. Seiky ū gakuso dai 23 g ō [Seiky ū
Journal, No. 23].” Keij ō: Seiky ū gakukai [Seiky ū Academic Association],
1936.

Seiky ū gakkai [Seiky ū Academic Association]. Seiky ū gakuso dai 27 g ō [Seiky ū
Journal, No. 27.] Keij ō: Seiky ū gakukai [Seiky ū Academic Association],
1937.

Shokumura, Kose. “Shokumin jiki ch ōsen ni okeru kute onkaku no ch ōsa o megutte.
[A Study of Court Music during the Colonial Period]” Chōsenshi kenkyukai
ronbon sh ū 35 (1997).

Takagi, Hiroshi. “1880s nendai, yamato ni okeru bunkazai hogo [Japan’s cultural
policy protection laws during the 1880s].” In Kindai tenn ōsei no bunkashiteki
kenkyū: tenn ō sh ūnen girei, nenjy ū, gy ōji, bunkazai [Modern Japan’s
Monarchial Cultural History: Coronation, Ceremonial Symbols, and Annual
Festivals], ed. Takagi Hiroshi, 264-283. Tokyo: Azekura shob ō, 1997.

Yoshikura, Bonn ō. Kigy ō annai jitsuri no ch ōsen: ichimei ch ōsen kigy ō annai [An
Entrepreneurial Guide to the Practical Matters of Korea, a.k.a. Korea’s
Entrepreneurial Guide]. Tokyo: Bunk ōdō, 1904.
174
Figure 1*
NT 1 Namdaemun (Sungnyemun) Gate (presently burned)
Chosŏn period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
*All 116 images have come from [Lee, Kwangpyo], [The Story
of National Treasures], ( [Seoul]: [Random House Joongang],
2005), 280-303.
Appendix A: Figures 1-116 National Treasures (NT) of 1962
175
Figure 2
NT 2 Ten-Storied Stone Pagoda on Won’gak Temple Site
Chosŏn period, 15
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list
176
Figure 3
NT 3 Monument Commemorating The Border Inspection on
Pukhansan Mountain by King Chinhŭng
Silla period, 6
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list
177
Figure 4
NT 4 Stupa on Kodal Temple site
Koryŏ period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
178
Figure 5
NT 5 Twin-Lion Stone Lantern at Pŏpchusa Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
179
Figure 6
NT 6 Seven-Storied Stone Pagoda in T’appyŏngri
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
180
Figure 7
NT 7 Stele of Pongsŏnhonggyŏng Temple
Koryŏ period, 11
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list
181
Figure 8
NT 8 Stele Accompanying Pagoda of Buddhist Priest Nang-hye
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
182
Figure 9
NT 9 Five-Storied Stone Pagoda on Chŏngnim Temple site
Paekche period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
183
Figure 10
NT 10 Three-Storied Stone Pagoda at Shilsang Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
184
Figure 11
NT 11 Stone Pagoda on Mirŭk Temple site
Paekche period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list
185
Figure 12
NT 12 Stone Lantern in front of Kakhwangjŏn Hall of Hwaŏm Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
186
Figure 13
NT 13 Kŭngnakchŏn Hall of Muwi Temple
Chosŏn period, 15
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
187
Figure 14
NT 14 Yŏngsanjŏn of Kŏjoam of Ŭnhae Temple
Koryŏ period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
188
Figure 15
NT 15 Kŭngnakchŏn Hall of Pongjŏng Temple
Koryŏ period, 13
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
189
Figure 16
NT 16 Seven-Storied Brick Pagoda in Shinsedong
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list
190
Figure 17
NT 17 Stone Lantern in front of Muryangsujŏn Hall of Pusŏk Temple
Unified Silla period
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
191
Figure 18
NT 18 Muryangsujŏn Hall of Pusŏk Temple
Koryŏ period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
192
Figure 19
NT 19 Chosadang Hall of Pusŏk Temple
Koryŏ period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
193
Figure 20
NT 20 Tabot’ap Pagoda at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
194
Figure 21
NT 21 Three-Storied Stone Pagoda at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
195
Figure 22
NT 22 Yŏnhwagyo and Ch’ilpogyo Bridge at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
196
Figure 23
NT 23 Ch’ŏngwungyo and Paegungyo Bridge at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
197
Figure 24
NT 24 Sŏkkuram Stone Grotto and Buddha Statue
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
198
Figure 25
NT 25 Monument to King T’aejŏng Muyŏl Before His Tomb
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
199
Figure 26
NT 26 Seated Gilt-Bronze Vairocana Buddha Statue at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
200
Figure 27
NT 27 Seated Gilt-Bronze Amitabha Buddha Statue at Pulguk Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
201
Figure 28
NT 28 Standing Gilt-Bronze Bhaisajyaguru Buddha Statue from Paengyul Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
202
Figure 29
NT 29 Bell of King Sŏngdŏk
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
203
Figure 30
NT 30 Stone Pagoda at Punhwang Temple
Silla period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
204
Figure 31
NT 31 Ch’ŏmsŏngdae Observatory
Silla period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
205
Figure 32
NT 32 Tripitaka Koreana at Haein Temple (81,158 Printing Blocks)
Koryŏ period, 13
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
206
Figure 33
NT 33 Monument in Ch’angnyŏng Commemorating The Border Inspection
by King Chinhŭng
Silla period, 6
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
Appears in the 1916 colonial list
207
Figure 34
NT 34 East Three-Storied Stone Pagoda in Sulchŏngri
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
208
Figure 35
NT 35 Four-Lion-Supported Three-Storied Stone Pagoda at Hwaŏm Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
209
Figure 36
NT 36 Bronze Bell of Sangwŏn Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: August 27, 1934
210
Figure 37
NT 37 Three-Storied Stone Pagoda in Kuhwangdong
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 24, 1935
211
Figure 38
NT 38 Three-Storied Stone Pagoda from Kosŏn Temple site
Unified Silla, 7
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 24, 1935
Appears in the 1916 colonial list
212
Figure 39
NT 39 Five-Storied Stone Pagoda in Nawŏnri
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 24, 1935
213
Figure 40
NT 40 Thirteen-Storied Stone Pagoda on Chŏnghye Temple site
Unified Silla period, 8
th
– 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 24, 1935
Appears in the 1916 colonial list
214
Figure 41
NT 41 Iron Buddhist Flagpole on Yongdu Temple site
Koryŏ period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936
Appears in the 1916 colonial list
215
Figure 42
NT 42 Wooden Buddhist Triptych at Songgwang Temple
Tang Dynasty period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936
216
Figure 43
NT 43 Edict of King Kojong of Koryŏ
Koryŏ period, 13
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936
217
Figure 44
NT 44 Two Three-Storied Stone Pagodas and Stone Lantern at Porim Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936
218
Figure 45
NT 45 Seated Clay Buddha Statue at Pusŏk Temple
Koryŏ period, 11
th
-12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936
219
Figure 46
NT 46 Wall Painting in Chosadang Hall of Pusŏk Temple
Koryŏ period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936
220
Figure 47
NT 47 Monument to Buddhist priest Chin-gam at Ssanggye Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936
221
Figure 48
NT 48 Nine-Storied Eight-Sided Stone Pagoda at Wŏlchŏng Temple
Koryŏ period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: February 21, 1936
222
Figure 49
NT 49 Taeungjon Hall of Sudŏk Temple
Koryŏ period, 14
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936
223
Figure 50
NT 50 Haet’almun Gate of Togap Temple
Chosŏn period, 15
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936
224
Figure 51
NT 51 Gate of an Official Inn in Kangnŭng
Koryŏ period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936
225
Figure 52
NT 52 Tripitaka Koreana Repository in Haein Temple
Chosŏn period, 15
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936
226
Figure 53
NT 53 East Stupa at Yŏngok Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936
227
Figure 54
NT 54 North Stupa at Yŏngok Temple
Koryŏ period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 23, 1936
228
Figure 55
NT 55 P’alsangjŏn Hall of Pŏpchu Temple
Chosŏn period, 17
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 3, 1938
229
Figure 56
NT 56 Kuksajŏn Hall of Songgwang Temple
Early Chosŏn
Previous colonial designation: May 3, 1938
230
Figure 57
NT 57 Stone pagoda of Buddhist Priest Ch’ŏlgam at Ssangbong Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 3, 1938
231
Figure 58
NT 58 Seated Iron Bhaisajyaguru Buddha Statue at Changgok Temple
Unified Silla period, 10
th
century
Previous colonial designation: May 3, 1938
232
Figure 59
NT 59 Stele that Accompanied the Stupa of National Preceptor Chigwang
at Pŏpch’ŏnsa Temple
Koryŏ period, 11
th
century
Previous colonial designation: October 18, 1939
233
Figure 60
NT 60 Celadon Incense Burner with Lion-Shaped Lid
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: October 18, 1939
234
Figure 61
NT 61 Celadon Wine Pot in the Shape of a Dragon
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: October 18, 1939
235
Figure 62
NT 62 Mirŭkchŏn Hall of Kŭmsan Temple
Chosŏn period, 17
th
century
Previous colonial designation: July 31, 1940
236
Figure 63
NT 63 Seated Iron Vairocana Buddha Statue at Topian Temple
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
Previous colonial designation: July 31, 1940
237
Figure 64
NT 64 Lotus-Shaped Stone Basin at Pŏpchu Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
Previous colonial designation: July 31, 1940
238
Figure 65
NT 65 Celadon Incense Burner with Unicorn-Shaped Lid
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: July 31, 1940
239
Figure 66
NT 66 Celadon Kundika with Inlaid Willow, Bamboo, Lotus, Reed
and Mandarin Duck Designs
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: July 31, 1940
240
Figure 67
NT 67 Kakhwangjŏn Hall of Hwaŏm Temple
Chosŏn period, 18
th
century
Previous colonial designation: June 15, 1942
241
Figure 68
NT 68 Celadon Maebyŏng (Vase) with Inlaid Crane and Cloud Designs
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
Previous colonial designation: December 30, 1943
242
Figure 69
NT 69 Certificate of Meritorious Subject for Shim Chi-Baek for his
distinguished service in helping to establish the Chosŏn Kingdom
Chosŏn period, 14
th
century
243
Figure 70
NT 70 Royal Proclamation of Creation and Use of Hunminjŏngŭm
(Korean Alphabet)
Chosŏn period, 15
th
century
244
Figure 71
NT 71 Tongguk Chŏngŭm (Dictionary of Proper Korean Pronunciation)
Volumes 1 and 2
Chosŏn period, 15
th
century
245
Figure 72
NT 72 Gilt-Bronze Buddhist Triad with Inscription of Cyclic Year of Kemi
(563 A.D.)
Three Kingdoms period, 6
th
century
246
Figure 73
NT 73 Gilt-Bronze Buddhist Triad in Miniature Shrine
Koryŏ period, 11
th
-12
th
century
247
Figure 74
NT 74 Celadon Water Dropper in the Shape of a Duck
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
248
Figure 75
NT 75 Bronze Incense Burner with Inlaid Silver Decoration at P’yoch’ung Temple
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
249
Figure 76
NT 76 War Diary, Letter File and Draft Copies of War Report of
Admiral Yi Sun-Shin
Chosŏn period, 10
th
century
250
Figure 77
NT 77 Five-Storied Stone Pagoda in T’apri
Silla period, 7
th
century
251
Figure 78
NT 78 Gilt-Bronze Maitreya in Meditation
Three Kingdoms period, 6
th
century
252
Figure 79
NT 79 Seated Gold Buddha Statue from Kuhwangrii, Kyŏngju city
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
253
Figure 80
NT 80 Standing Gold Buddha Statue from Kuhwangri, Kyŏngju city
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century
254
Figure 81
NT 81 Standing Stone Maitreya Statue from Kamsan Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
255
Figure 82
NT 82 Standing Stone Amitabha Statue from Kamsan Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
256
Figure 83
NT 83 Gilt-Bronze Maitreya in Meditation
Three Kingdoms period, 7
th
century
257
Figure 84
NT 84 Buddhist Triad Carved on Rock Surface
Paekche period, Late 6
th
- Early 7
th
century
258
Figure 85
NT 85 Gilt-Bronze Buddhist Triad with the Inscription of Cyclic Year of
Shinmyo (571 A.D.)
Koguryŏ period, 6
th
century
259
Figure 86
NT 86 Ten-Storied Marble Pagoda from Kyŏngch’ŏn Temple
Koryŏ period, 14
th
century
260
Figure 87
NT 87 Gold Crown from Kŭmgwanch’ong (Gold Crown Tumulus)
Silla period, 5
th
– 6
th
century
261
Figure 88
NT 88 Girdle and Pendants from Kŭmgwanch’ong (Gold Crown Tumulus)
Silla period, 5
th
– 6
th
century
262
Figure 89
NT 89 Gold Buckle
Lelang period, 1
st
– 2
nd
century
263
Figure 90
NT 90 Two Gold Earrings with Large Balls
Silla period, 6
th
century
264
Figure 91
NT 91 Vessel in the Shape of a Warrior on Horseback and Vessel in the Shape of
an Attendant on Horseback
Silla period, 5
th
– 6
th
century
265
Figure 92
NT 92 Celadon Kundika with Willow and Water Fowl Designs in Silver
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
266
Figure 93
NT 93 White Porcelain Jar with Grape Design in Underglaze Iron
Chosŏn period, 18
th
century
267
Figure 94
NT 94 Celadon Bottle in the Shape of a Melon
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
268
Figure 95
NT 95 Celadon Openwork Incense Burner
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
269
Figure 96
NT 96 Celadon Pitcher in the Shape of a Tortoise
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
270
Figure 97
NT 97 Celadon Maebyŏng (Vase) Incised with Lotus and Arabesque Designs
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
271
Figure 98
NT 98 Celadon Jar with Inlaid Peony Design
Koryŏ period, 13
th
century
272
Figure 99
NT 99 Two Three-Storied Stone Pagodas from Kalhang Temple
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
273
Figure 100
NT 100 Seven-Storied Stone Pagoda from Namgewŏn Temple
Koryŏ period, 13
th
century
274
Figure 101
NT 101 Stupa of National Preceptor Chigwang from Pŏpch’on Temple
Koryŏ period, 11
th
century
275
Figure 102
NT 102 Stupa of National Preceptor Hongbŏp from Chŏngt’o Temple
Koryŏ period, 11
th
century
276
Figure 103
NT 103 Twin-Lion Stone Lantern from Chunghŭngsansŏng Fortress
Unified Silla period
277
Figure 104
NT 104 Stupa thought to contain remains of Buddhist Priest Yŏmgŏ
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
278
Figure 105
NT 105 Three-Storied Stone Pagoda from Pŏmhangri
Unified Silla period, 9
th
century
279
Figure 106
NT 106 Stone Amitabha Triad (Amitabha with Attendants and 28 other Buddhist
Images) Inscription of Cyclic Year of Kyeyu (A.D. 673)
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century
280
Figure 107
NT 107 White Porcelain Jar with Grape Design in Underglaze Iron
Chosŏn period, 18
th
century
281
Figure 108
NT 108 One-Thousand-Buddhas Stele with Inscription of Cyclic year of Kyeyu
(A.D. 673)
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century
282
Figure 109
NT 109 Kunwi Buddhist Triad and Grotto
Unified Silla period, 8
th
century
283
Figure 110
NT 110 Portrait of Yi Chae-hyŏn (Penname:Ikche)
Koryŏ period, 14
th
century
284
Figure 111
NT 111 Portrait of An Hyang (Penname: Hoehŏn)
Koryŏ period, 14
th
century
285
Figure 112
NT 112 Two Three-Storied Stone Pagodas on Kamŭn Temple site
Unified Silla period, 7
th
century
286
Figure 113
NT 113 Celadon Bottle with Willow Design in Underglaze Iron
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
287
Figure 114
NT 114 Celadon Bottle in the Shape of a Muskmelon with Inlaid Peony and
Chrysanthemum Designs
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
288
Figure 115
NT 115 Celadon Bowl with Inlaid Arabesque Design
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
289
Figure 116
NT 116 Celadon Ewer in the Shape of a Gourd with Inlaid Peony Design
Koryŏ period, 12
th
century
290
Appendix B: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu. “Koseki kyû ibuttsu h ōzon kisoku [E: Regulations on
the Preservation of Ancient Sites and Relics],” Government-General of Korea
(Ch ōsen S ōtokufu) Order No. 52. Enacted July 1916.
1

Article 1:
Definition of gojok: castle, palace, castle wall, official entrance, road, torch, government
official building, private temple, dojagi kiln, historical sites, remains, ruins and war sites,
in addition, anything related to historical fact. Yumul (relic) is defined as a pagoda,
monument, bell, Buddha statue (iron, gold), and stone lamp. Object should represent
history and archaeological materials.

Article 2
Historical remains and relics will all be registered in a book. If worth registering, will be
registered. Registered format:
Name
What kind
Size
Where did object come from
Who presently possesses object
Address
Condition
Historical provenance
How to maintain protection

Article 3
Whoever finds an object must report within three days to the police, orally or in writing.

Article 4
When reported, a registration form must be completed and reported to police.
If not reported in three days, the police chief must reinforce the registration.
If the object is not of value, police will be notified to de-register the item.

Article 5
If any alteration to the object needs to be made, permission from the Ch ōsen S ōtokufu
must be obtained through the local police. 1. Fill out a form with registered number and
name 2. Report what alterations must be made, what repairs, and the purpose of

1
Simplified translation by Virginia Moon
291
alteration. 3. Cost of repair and how repair will be done must be reported. 4. Report
when this change will take place.

Article 6
If alterations need to made to a registered object, this must be reported to the police.

Article 7
When an unearthed object is discovered, a reason for the discovery, must be submitted to
the police to be reported to the Ch ōsen S ōtokufu.

Article 8
If Article 3 and 5 are not followed, the fine will be a maximum of 200 w ŏn.

292
Appendix C: Ch ōsen S ōtokufu. “Ch ōsen h ōmotsu koseki meish ō tenzen kinenbutsu
h ōzon zei [E: Law for the Preservation of Treasures, Historic Remains, Scenic Sites,
and Natural Monuments].” Enacted December 1933.
1

Article 1
Appointing or dissolving a cultural property will be notified in the kanpo (official
gazette).

Article 2
The Minister of the Interior will report on restricted areas, or if privately owned, will
notify the Ch ōsen S ōtokufu. In orders of protection, no report is necessary. (Not all items
are reported)

Article 3
In order to appoint, the item must go through the Ministry of Education.

Article 4.
When appointing a privately-owned object, the owner must be notified. In cases of re-
investigation, authorities cannot seek owner before sunrise and after sunset.

Article 5
A government employee, when applying for object designation, must use a special form
and must go through Article 3 above.

Article 6
Need Minister of Interior’s permission to take object out of the country. Need to
complete application and all necessary documents. 1.Bomul number, name, number of
pieces. 2. Reason for taking out. 3. Period of time. 4. Destination 5. Details as to how
the object be shipped; itinerary, if by boat. 6. Procedure for how item will be loaded. 7.
How will the item be kept/stored while overseas. 8. Report insurance matters. 9. Any
corrections to this must be reported to the Minister of Interior.

Article 7
Once permission is granted, all matters must be reported to the tax collector’s office.

Article 8
Once items leave or return, seven days are granted to report.

1
Simplified translation by Virginia Moon.
293
Article 9
Any request to repair an object must go through the Minister of Interior. Application
process: 1.Bomul number, name, number of pieces. 2.Changes to the object must be
reported, including damage. 3. Removal or new building built for protection, blueprint
and people in charge must provide name, address, name of organization. 4. Changes to
building plans, if any, should be submitted. 5.Estimated time of construction. 6. Owner
of land must give written permission. Any changes must be submitted to Minister of
Education.

Article 10
The person who has received permission, as stated in Article 5, will have someone survey
and approve, diagram and photo the object to send to the Minister of Education.

Article 11
To take out of country, refer to Article 6. 1. Bomul, name, number of pieces. 2. Reason
for help or consultation. 3. Facility blueprint and expense of construction. 4. Estimated
period of construction.

Article 12
If appointed item is in private possession, or person presently maintaining the object, has
been changed or newly-hired, name, number, address change must be reported within 14
days to Minister of Interior.

Article 13
If owner or custodian, mistakenly, or on purpose, damages the designated object, it must
be reported within 7 days.

Article 14
If owner or custodian has moved, the new address must be reported within 14 days to
Minster of Interior.

Article 15
When object is designated, one must obtain a certificate from the nearest museum. If
taken to museum to be taken care of, a certificate still must be obtained.

Article 16
If object is exhibited, and then damaged, it must be reported to owner and Minister of
Education immediately.

Article 17
When owner wants to receive money to repair item, owner must request within three
months to Minister of Interior to make the final decision. Expense budget: 3 w ŏn to 60
w ŏn.

294
Article 18
Same as Article 17. Amount of expense given depends on Minister of Interior.

Article 19
When Minister of Interior appoints someone to oversee a designated object, other than
owner, it must be reported to the owner.

Article 20
If there is damage to the designated object, name, number and damage must be
determined by local government and reported to the owner and Minister of Interior.

Article 21
If local groups wish to exhibit these objects publicly, they can charge a fee.

Article 22
If object is moved, the expense should be requested to the Minister of Interior.

Article 23
Minister of Interior can help with expenses in repairing temple possessions and private
owned items, if the budget allows. 1. ID number 2. name 3. number of items 4. reason
for assistance. 5. picture or diagram. 6. name of company to repair. 7. length of time
required.

Article 24
Ministry of Education assisted object, or any repair or maintenance, is controlled or
directed by the Minister of Interior.

Article 25
The Minister of Education and the local governor are the reporting officials concerning
matters regarding the objects.

Article 26
If individual owner submits a schedule and expenses towards the repair of an object and
is not finished within projected time, then reason for this delay must be submitted and a
new proposal submitted.

Article 27
If the Ministry of Education gives aid for repair, but the staff of the Ministry of Education
thinks it is not correct, they can correct it.

Article 28
If Ministry of Cultural Properties received assistance for outside matters, expenses
incurred must be reported. If other items are contained within, cost of repair must be
done within 2 months.
295
Article 29
If repair is not completed within acceptable standards, all assistance can be revoked, or
only partially given. Example of cases: 1. Established guidelines of how to maintain an
object is violated. 2. Impossible to complete repair. 3. Dishonesty in requesting aid.

Article 30
Articles 6, 8, 12. When items leave the country, the above-said items requiring
permission from the Ministry of Education does not apply.

Article 31
If a private temple item is appointed as a cultural property, then the form of protection
must follow government guidelines. If protection has been carried out incorrectly,
Ministry of Education can order how it should be protected.

Article 32.
If a private temple holds an assigned object and wants to move it to another temple, this
request must be made to the Ministry of Education, unless taken to another museum.
This process requires ID, name, reason for move, how long will it stay, where will it
move to, what kind of transportation used, how will it be maintained.

Article 33
When a moved item is being returned, it must be reported to Minister of Interior within 7
days.

Article 34
Stone rubbings or similar items, require permission from the Ministry of Education:
Information requested: 1.name, number, reason for copy, time period to make, how it will
be made 5. person who will carry this out.

Article 35
Shell mounds (paechong), and other objects, when discovered, or altered, documents
must be submitted to Minister of Education including: 1. kind, name, location. 2. reason
for alteration. 3. diagram of alteration. 4. beginning and ending dates of project 5. if on
personally-owned land, land owner’s permission must be obtained. 6. story of
background.

Article 36
Repair of Article 35 must be reported to Minister of Interior including 1. kind, name,
location 2. structure 3. story of background 4. when discovered within 2 months

Article 37
Discovery of Article 36 must be reported immediately.

296
Article 38
All reasons for fines.: 1. fines for violation of treasure guidelines 2. lazy, so disrepair, or
lack of maintenance 3. moved without permission 4. copied without permission.

Article 39
After designation, if Ministry of Education order is not followed or discovery not
reported, then penalty or punishment will be given.

Article 40
If a director of a private temple, then director should follow these regulations, as well as
those who work in the private temple. Effective immediately. Used to be Koseki kyû
ibuttsu h ōzon kisoku [E: Regulations on the Preservation of Ancient Sites and Relics];
now Chōsen h ōmotsu koseki meish ō tenzen kinenbutsu h ōzon zei [E: Law for the
Preservation of Treasures, Historic Remains, Scenic Sites, and Natural Monuments].

297

Appendix D: “The Act for Cultural Property Preservation.” Act. No. 961. January
10, 1962. (English translation provided by UNESCO)
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation examines how Korea’s National Treasures system, originally established by the Japanese authorities during Korea’s colonial period (1910-1945), helped to define the traditional Korean art canon of today, and why this canon continues to be hailed as representative of the Korean nation. The manipulation of visual art is a powerful political device, and the Korean National Treasure system is no exception. Seeking to validate their territorial claims, the colonial Japanese excavated and claimed ancient objects from Korean soil, kept those that served their desired interpretation of Korean history, and preserved their selection by legislating a Treasures system whose objects they then displayed in museums, which they built for this purpose, and at international exhibitions.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Expressionism multiplied: early twentieth-century German posters between art, commerce, and politics

PDF

Eclipsed cinemas: colonial modernity and film cultures in Korea under Japanese colonial rule

PDF

Contemporary women's writing in South Korea: pushing the parameters of femininity in a masculinist tradition

PDF

Rescue and regulation: a history of undesirable children in Korea, 1884-1961

PDF

Competing futures: War narratives in postwar Japanese architecture, 1945-1970

PDF

Independent diplomacy between North Korea and China following the 20th Communist Congress of the Soviet Union

PDF

Kunstwissenschaft and the "primitive": excursions in the history of art history, 1879-1914

PDF

The world in the nation: Migration in contemporary anglophone and francophone fiction; 1980-2010

PDF

State restructuring and pathways to local democracy: idea and politics of decentralization in Japan and Korea

PDF

Beyond nationalism: a history of leisure discourse in and between the United States and Japan, 1910-1940

PDF

Tracing a history: an exploration of contemporary Chicano art and artists

PDF

Environmental policy reforms in a global and regional world: mimetic, diffusive, and coercive policy adoptions in France and Korea

PDF

Elevated: Ballet and culture in the United States, World War II to the National Endowment for the Arts

PDF

Nation in uniform: Chicano/Latino war narratives and the construction of nation in the Korean War and Vietnam War

PDF

Securitizing language: political elites and language policy securitization in South Korea

PDF

The ambivalence of conserving Busan’s colonial heritage

PDF

Art and cultural diplomacy in the international exhibition: documenta 1 and Prospect.1

PDF

Politics, public relations and internal communications: a look at the DNC

PDF

The lady of the eighth ward: political, economic, and military power of nyoin during the twelfth century, Japan

PDF

Rituals of a nation's identity: archaeology and genealogy in antiquities museums of Rome

Asset Metadata

Creator Moon, Virginia Han (author)

Core Title The grafting of a canon: the politics of Korea's national treasures and the formation of an art history

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Art History

Publication Date 08/09/2010

Defense Date 03/05/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag art canon,Art History,Colonialism,national treasures,nationalism,OAI-PMH Harvest,post-colonialism

Place Name Japan (countries), Korea (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cho, Insoo (committee chair), Malone, Carolyn (committee chair), Hwang, Kyung Moon (committee member), Lang, Karen (committee member)

Creator Email vhmoon@gmail.com,vmoon@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3358

Unique identifier UC1475762

Identifier etd-Moon-3578 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-381130 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3358 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Moon-3578.pdf

Dmrecord 381130

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Moon, Virginia Han

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu