Visiting the Kaesŏng Koryŏ MuseumOn the way for reconciliation on the Korean peninsula

Ruth Scheidhauer

University College London, Institute of Archaeology

ICME/2009/Seoul: “Museums for Reconciliation and Peace-

Roles of Ethnographic Museums in the World”

Seoul, October 19 – 21, 2009

The Korean peninsula

Kaesŏng tourist map

Disturbed socio-cultural Reproduction processes (in crisis)

Reproduction processes

Culture Society Personality

Cultural reproduction

Loss of meaning Loss of legitimacy Education and orientation crisis

Social integration Intimidation of collective identity

Anomie (loss of social norms)

estrangement

Socialisation Loss of traditions Motivation deprivation

Psychopathology

Adopted after Habermas, 1981, Vol. 2: 215

Socio-cultural reproduction processes of communicative action

Reproduction processes

Culture Society Personality

Cultural reproduction

Transmission, critique, gaining new cultural knowledge

Renewal of legitimising knowledge

Reproduction of educational knowledge

Social integration Immunisation of core value orientations

Coordination of actions along inter-subjective valid norms

Reproduction of Social affiliation patterns

Socialisation Di-culturation Value internalisation

Construction of Personal identity

Reconciliation on the Korean peninsula

• Inter-state diplomacy• Economical cooperation• Institutional cooperation• Deliberation of historical narratives

– Scholarly/ professional exchange (encounter)– School education– Tourism (Museum visits)

The benefits of Kaesong tourism (www.ikaesong.com)

• First overland connection from ROK to DPRK• Visiting the cultural and scenic sites of Kaesong

assists inter Korean exchange and the foundation of unification

The museum’s role for reconciliation

• Ethnicity dictates a strong influence on Korean national identity and cultural values

• Does the museum reveal a sense of reconciliation through this shared belonging?

• How, if at all, is the contradiction of a common national culture and a divided nation-state dealt with?

Kaesŏng Koryŏ Museum partial timeline

1931: provincial museum is established

1933-44: famous art-historian Ko Yusop is museum director

1945-52: provincial museum under ROK Korea Nat Mus.

1952-88: change of name to Kaesong History Museum Museum under DPRK rule

1988-present: move to the current site of the

Sŏnggyun’gwan newly named Koryŏ Museum

2005-07: first tours for ROK citizens to

Kaesong and the museum

The past of the Kaesŏng Koryŏ Museum

The Kaesŏng Provincial Museum with a new adjunct building (1949)

National Museum Evacuation committee meeting in Pusan 1952 (Jin Hong-sob on left)

Former director (1947-52) of the Kaesŏng Museum, Jin Hong-sob at an interview in March 2009

• Secret burial of 100 artefacts from the museum in a nearby village before having to flee Kaesŏng in December 1951Munhwa Ilbo News 2000-10-21 

Interview 20.10.2000 (Govern. inspection of the Korea Nat. Mus.)

Interview 11.03.2009 (an interview series in celebration of 100 anniversary of the Korea Museum)

• Due to ongoing battles around Kaesŏng, already well before the official beginning of the Korean War, director Jin had Koryŏ ceramics and other important cultural relics hastily sent to Seoul and the Kaesŏng Provincial Museum closed its doors. Donga Ilbo 2009-03-12

Multiple nation narratives

Cultural nation engagement

Cultural nation narratives

Ideological nation narratives

Ideological nation narrative

Ideological nation narrative IIKim Il-Songism

‘Female’ dragon head ‘Male’ dragon head

Compared to our [South Korean] museums, the state of the exhibition is shamefully appalling. As electricity was saved it was dark, and one light was not enough to illuminate the Koryŏ celadons sufficiently, the stone sarcophagus and bronze censer are exposed unprotected from the hands of passing tourists. Despite the exhibition’s lack of refinement, the over one thousand artefacts are a stupendous treasure of great value. (Hanguk Ilbo, January 4, 2008)

Signposts, culture and politicsOne tourist thinks that the constant reference to Kim Il song as expressed in all the signpost must be tiring for the north Korean citizen. He further notes: “See, the name of the great leader and his remarks are written in red letters. Historic sites and politics! Does not really fit”. A younger tourist also comments on the boldly visible omnipresence of the two Kims. “Wherever one goes, one easily sees their idolization”.

Also the emphasize on pictures taken by or with a North Korean tour guide, gives an idea of the exceptional experience as well as the nearly surprised realization that the North Korean is a (normal) human being.

Conclusion

Pre-defined means of reconciliation, engagement and deliberation are not used in a sufficient way.

• The museum narratives are not a joined effort of deliberation, yet very much rely on common cultural grounds.• Rather than active engagement, the museum visit is a one-sided encounter. • Despite being unbalanced, this encounter leaves its positive effects on both sides. A realisation of actual geographical closeness, and cultural and human affinity with the ROK tourist and an (economical) impression on the DPRK personnel involved.

Thank you!

감사합니다 !

Remains of stone pagoda from Hŭngguk-sa in the Koryŏ Museum