보존유적 현황과 문제 인식을 통한보존조치 제도 연구

Abstract

The term “conserved remains” refers to cultural remains that are preserved in accordance with the valuationof buried cultural properties when important remains are recognized in rescue excavations during constructionwork. South Korea’s rapid economic growth and ensuing land development over the past few decades compelled asharp increase in the number of rescue excavation cases, and, naturally, of conserved remains. Today, an increasinglylarge number of conserved remains have raised issues, including those concerning land expropriation as well as themanagement and utilization of such remains, but no clear solutions have been proposed. This study attempts to propose plans for improvement based mainly on the recognition of institutional issuesrather than technical issues related to the conservation of cultural remains. This is because the identification andreview of institutional deficiencies must be prioritized in order to efficiently manage conserved remains with limitedresources and manpower. Among many possible proposals to demand improvement of conservation policies, one that must first beexamined under the current system is the rapid transition, or review thereof, of “conserved remains” to “designatedcultural properties.” Unlike designated cultural properties, conserved remains are merely a temporary means ofconservation, because they lack regulations for follow-ups subsequent to preliminary measures. Naturally, deferringthe definition of relics as “conserved remains” for extended periods causes numerous problems. Measures to resolvesuch problems may include establishing a legal system to manage conserved remains at a level similar to designatedcultural properties or seeking ways to improve management under the current system. This study focuses onareas where institutional improvement for conserved remains is possible by methods other than through the rapidtransition to designated cultural properties and presents several proposals. Currently, conservation measures are divided into three categories: on-site conservation, relocation conservation,and record conservation. This study reclassifies these categories from three into four categories. On-siteconservation includes only two categories: conserved remains and the newly-proposed soil-covered remains. Tworemaining categories, the relocation conservation remains and the record conservation remains, are presented asclassifications in which development projects are possible, and they are presented as alternative conservation typesthat contrast with on-site conservation. Unlike conserved remains, soil-covered conservation presented as a newcategory in which development projects are possible.