DistantNews
Support us
🇰🇷 South Korea /Culture & Society

“The Idea That Korean Cultural Objects Abroad Must All Be Repatriated Is Far Too Simple”

From Dong-A Ilbo · () Korean

Translated from Korean and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

Interview Named sources Context piece
  • Kim Su-jin, a Sungkyunkwan University researcher, says repatriation demands are strongest when artifacts clearly left Korea through illegal or unethical means.
  • She identifies grave markers, royal seals and unique royal works as examples that may warrant return, while noting that Korea also holds artifacts taken from Central Asia by a Japanese expedition.
  • Kim argues that Korean artifacts in overseas museums can introduce Korean culture to international audiences, even as she criticizes the poor presentation of Korean collections abroad.

“The idea that Korean cultural objects abroad must all be repatriated is far too simple,” says Kim Su-jin, the Sungkyunkwan University researcher who traced how Korean artworks reached the United States from 1882 through the period of the U.S. military government in her book Collected Korea.

I think objects also have their own fate. They play roles as diplomacy, cultural strategy and messengers.

· Kim Su-jinKim explained why she rejects the blanket argument that all Korean cultural artifacts abroad must be returned.

Kim says objects can have a fate of their own because they may serve as diplomatic tools, cultural strategies and messengers. In a phone interview with Dong-A Ilbo, she said the clearest cases for demanding repatriation involve artifacts whose removal was plainly illegal or immoral.

She pointed to grave markers excavated from other people’s tombs and royal seals from Jongmyo Shrine, objects unlikely to have entered overseas collections through legitimate trade. Overseas institutions, including the Cleveland Museum of Art, have returned artifacts after determining that they could only have been stolen goods. Kim also believes Korea can seek the return of unique works and royal items such as uigwe records.

The clearest cases where I believe we can demand repatriation are artifacts whose removal was plainly illegal and immoral.

· Kim Su-jinShe described the circumstances that most clearly justify seeking an artifact’s return.

At the same time, she said Korea does not always stand only on the side demanding returns. The National Museum of Korea holds more than 1,500 artifacts removed from Central Asia in the early 20th century by an expedition linked to the Japanese monk Otani Kozui. Kim said Korea has long used a “victim narrative,” shaped by colonial rule and wartime looting, which helps explain the sensitivity surrounding repatriation.

Korea has used a victim narrative.

· Kim Su-jinKim linked Korea’s sensitivity over repatriation to its colonial and wartime history.

She is skeptical of the annual National Assembly audits that focus on how many overseas artifacts Korea has brought home. Kim regrets that Korean galleries abroad often look poorer than Chinese or Japanese galleries, but points to a contradiction: calls to improve those displays coexist with demands to bring every Korean artifact back. Seeing wooden clogs and straw shoes in overseas museums, she said, she sometimes thinks, “You were right to leave. If you had stayed in Korea, you probably would not even have been exhibited.”

You were right to leave. If you had stayed in Korea, you probably would not even have been exhibited.

· Kim Su-jinShe described her reaction to seeing Korean wooden clogs and straw shoes displayed in overseas museums.
About this summary

Originally published by Dong-A Ilbo in Korean. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.

More Stories

From Our Blog