7KH3UHVHUYDWLRQRIWKH&KđQMX+DQRN9LOODJH)URP

0DWHULDO$XWKHQWLFLW\WRWKH7KHPHG5HSOLFD
&RGUXĥD6°QWLRQHDQ

Future Anterior, Volume 12, Number 1, Summer 2015, pp. 56-75 (Article)

3XEOLVKHGE\8QLYHUVLW\RI0LQQHVRWD3UHVV

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/fta/summary/v012/12.1.sintionean.html

Access provided by Vienna University Library (10 Sep 2015 10:33 GMT)
1. A typical hanok from the Chŏnju Hanok Village, open to the public. Patterns representative of Korean aesthetics can be seen
on the roof and the fence. In the absence of any explanation, the construction date of the house remains unknown. Courtesy of
Andrew Haig; copyright 2011.
Codrut�a Sîntionean
The Preservation of the
Chŏnju Hanok Village
From Material Authenticity to the
Themed Replica

Deemed the most representative of Korean traditional ar-

chitecture, hanok are one-­story, tile-­roofed wooden houses,
with under­floor heating and interior courtyards, built for the
yangban elite of the Chosŏn Dynasty (1392–1910). There are
several folk villages and traditional hanok villages scattered
across South Korea, preserved by local governments for their
traditional architecture.1 These so-­called villages, sometimes
located in an urban environment, can include Chosŏn-­era
hanok, as well as houses built in traditional styles at the begin-
ning of the twentieth century or even in modern times.
Among these, the Chŏnju Hanok Village in Chŏnju (also
romanized Jeonju),2 a city in the western part of South Korea,
is particularly worthy of attention because of the effects of
fluctuating preservation practices on the overall authenticity
of the site and on the strategies of communication involved in
its presentation. Preservation authorities have sanctioned the
construction of copies of traditional hanok to fill empty lots
and replace stylistically inharmonious buildings. I argue that
preservation authorities have come to realize that this archi-
tectural mimicry ultimately undermines preservation efforts,
but instead of changing the policy, they have sought to cover
up the simulacrum through a remarkably influential visitor
interpretation program that represents the heritage as authen-
tic. In what follows, I critically examine the powerful interpre-
tation tools used by heritage managers in order to prevent
the impression of simulacrum and, when necessary, conceal
dysfunctional preservation. Nonetheless, visitors can manage
to form their own understanding of authenticity through lived
experience.

Inventing Tradition
In 2002, the regional government of North Chŏlla Province
started to promote its capital, Chŏnju, as a “city of traditional
culture” in order to boost national and regional tourism. Chŏnju
Hanok Village, located in the center of the city, quickly became
central to this discourse about the opportunities to experi-
Future Anterior
Volume XII, Number 1 ence tradition firsthand. The site is managed and interpreted
Summer 2015 by the bureaucrats working at the Hanok Village Operation

57
Department within the Chŏnju City Hall. The department is
organized in three subsections: Management, Facilities, and
Preservation.3 There is a “Chŏnju City Hanok Preservation
Committee” working under the Preservation section, regu-
lated by local legislation and composed of bureaucrats and
citizens. The role of this body is consultative: members carry
out investigations, review applications for subsidies, repair
plans, drawings, reports about finished repair work and all
kinds of documentation, deliberate, and discuss matters with
the mayor, who has the final decision in all matters related to
the management of the village. When the situation requires,
the committee can take into consideration the opinions of the
residents and stakeholders.4
The government officials working at the Chŏnju City Hall
(the Department of Culture, Tourism, and Sports) promote
the city as “the most Korean city,” “a stronghold of Han-­style,
incorporating the most Korean traditional culture.”5 This claim
of representation, far from being simply a catchphrase, is
reminiscent of the long-­standing Korean obsession to identify
artifacts and pieces of heritage that most accurately express
national identity, perceived as an essence that inhabits things.6
“Han” is the ethnic name Koreans use for themselves;7 here, it
is used as a common denominator for the tourist attractions
advertised by the Department of Culture, Tourism, and Sports:
Hansik (Korean food), Hanok (Korean houses), Hanji (Korean
handmade paper), Hanbang (Korean traditional medicine).8
The insistence on “Han” suggests that everything in Chŏnju
embodies national identity, while “Han-­style” equates with
tradition itself.
Another promotional phrase coined by the Department of
Culture, Tourism, and Sports and eagerly circulated by the Ko-
rean mass media is “Chŏnju, the thousand years old capital.”9
The slogan makes reference to the short history of the city as
the capital of one of the three ancient provinces — ­the Later
Paekche Kingdom (892–936) — ­and its enduring privileged
status as the spiritual capital of the ruling Yi clan during the
Chosŏn Dynasty. The City Hall authorities presents the Hanok
Village as the very embodiment of Chŏnju culture, history, and
atmosphere, despite the fact that the origin of the village has
no connection to the history of the ancient Paekche and can be
historically located only after the end of the Chosŏn Dynasty.
In fact, the village’s traditional houses are not older than one
hundred years. There is a clear disconnect between the real
history of the Chŏnju Hanok Village and the cultural identity the
City Hall bureaucrats and the tourism industry have created for
the city of Chŏnju. However, tourist brochures and the media
commonly use phrases such as “a cultural space containing
the history and flavor of a thousand-­years-­old capital, Chŏnju,”

58
when representing the historic significance of the Hanok Vil-
lage.10 Visitors hoping to find traces of the old history of Chŏnju
as a capital in the village will surely be disappointed to dis-
cover the somewhat misleading character of such promotional
interpretation strategies. The implied promise is that visitors
will find more than just a village, but rather the cultural refine-
ment expected of a capital. In other words, tourist operators
and heritage managers invoke the authority of tropes about
capital cities as old, majestic, and monumental to legitimize
the Hanok Village. In all fairness, there is refinement in the
Hanok Village, as one can savor the elegance and nostalgic
ambience of the traditional houses. But there is a gulf between
the advertised, marketing-­oriented “Chŏnju-­as-­capital” and the
real village. To cover over this gulf, the Hanok Village Operation
Department provides onsite interpretation that eludes discus-
sions of the village’s age and relatively recent history.
Until the beginning of the twentieth century, the popula-
tion of Chŏnju lived in and around the old Chŏnju Fortress. The
distinction between intra muros and extra muros was actually a
distinction in social class: the upper class yangban (the intel-
lectual and political elite of the Chosŏn Dynasty) lived within
the confines of the fortress walls, and the commoners and the
lower classes dwelled outside them. When the Japanese ar-
rived, they first lived outside the fortress, but as their economic
and political power rose after 1905, they gradually moved intra
muros—­a symbolic affirmation of their political authority.11 The
Japanese colonial authorities demolished the fortress walls
to allow for the construction of roads and built Japanese-­style
houses intra muros. By the 1930s, the inside of the fortress had
become an entirely Japanese area. The Korean elite moved to
the extra muros areas formerly inhabited by the lower classes,
alongside the commoners who had acquired a certain degree
of wealth through agriculture and trade. They built themselves
new homes, called “improved hanok” or “new-­style hanok,”
influenced by Western and Japanese architecture. The altera-
tions they made (such as glass windows, a different positioning
of the kitchen, indoor toilets, etc.) reflected changes in lifestyle
and architectural techniques, as well as a more practical and
flexible approach to everyday necessities. What resulted was
a neighborhood of more than seven hundred houses, eclectic
in format and style, which now form the Chŏnju Hanok Village.
The age of the houses ranges from the 1920s to the present time,
reflecting a century-­long evolution of modern-­style hanok.12
The tensions that surely emerged in the colonial context
between the Japanese occupiers and the Korean inhabitants
who felt compelled to move and create a new neighborhood
are nowhere visible in the onsite interpretation of the Hanok
Village.13 A narrative of anticolonial struggle and patriotic spirit

59
2. A view from above reveals slight
irregularities in the aspect of the
roofs. The occasional broken roof (left)
and the modern house, taller than
the rest (upper right), testify for the
various ages and eclectic styles of the
buildings in the village. Courtesy of Lee
Seung-jae; copyright 2012.
could have emerged here, bringing to the fore the commend-
able and heroic refusal of the Chosŏn elite to live together with
the Japanese oppressors. It is rather strange that the manag-
ers working at the Hanok Village Operation Department, who
have designed the interpretation of the site, have overlooked
this discursive opportunity, rarely missed in the presentation
of heritage in South Korea, which abounds in narratives of
anticolonial resistance.14 But this oversight is less odd if one
considers that any discussion of the colonial period would
make evident the relatively young age of the Hanok Village.
The lack of historical information and insufficient explanation
is instrumental, as it makes it possible to present the site as
the epitome of traditional architecture. Since the age of the
village is nowhere apparent, at least discursively, the visitor
is encouraged to engage in a narrative of tradition viewed as
something premodern, originating centuries ago, in a truly
“Korean” epoch.
There are, to be precise, some buildings that are indeed
older than a century in the village. The residential area was
built around several relics of the Chosŏn era, indicative of the
Confucian ethos deeply embraced by the ruling Yi Dynasty. The
most prominent of these relics have been designated national
heritage:15 P’ungnammun (fortress gate, first built in 1389, de-
stroyed and rebuilt in 1734, and again in 1768, designated trea-
sure no. 308 in 1963), Chŏnju Kaeksa (guest house, built before
1471 and designated treasure no. 583 in 1975), Kyŏnggijŏn (a
Confucian shrine holding the portrait of the founder of the
Chosŏn Dynasty, built in 1410 and designated historic site
60
no. 339 in 1991), Chŏnju Hyanggyo (Confucian school, probably
built in the fourteenth century and designated historic site no.
379 in 1992), and the Omoktae and Imoktae Pavilions (associ-
ated with the beginning of Chosŏn Dynasty, fifteenth century).
The Hanok Village Operation Department uses these sites to
promote the village, to the point that they have become central
to the discourse about the tradition embodied in the site. All
seven themed routes proposed by the department include at
least one Chosŏn Dynasty heritage site, with two routes fully
dedicated to Chosŏn vestiges.16 This is congruent with the
rhetoric of the Cultural Heritage Administration (hereafter, the
CHA), the official manager of national heritage in South Korea,
concerning what “traditional Korean” means: the CHA equates
Korean tradition with the Chosŏn culture and has therefore
favored Chosŏn sites and artifacts in its designation and resto-
ration practices over the past two decades.17
The Chŏnju Hanok Village offers a highly questionable
representation of tradition, in which relatively new hanok, dat-
ing no further back than the colonial period (1910–1945), are
presented as the embodiment of the traditional architecture
of Korea, equated with the refined and dignified houses of
the Chosŏn elite. Furthermore, this particular representation
excludes the heritage of common people (no thatched-­roof
houses typical of the Chosŏn era are present) and advances
the sumptuous culture and living styles of the nobility as “tra-
ditionally Korean.”
In his analysis of the fictional landscape presented at the
Korean Folk Village in southern Seoul, Timothy R. Tangherlini
inquires how much of the narrative of tradition visitors ac-
cept, and establishes a typology ranging from the completely
uninformed to the very informed experts.18 Indeed, the more
a visitor knows about the architectural history of Korea, the
more likely he or she will reject the official interpretation of
the Chŏnju Hanok Village. It seems the ideal viewer envisioned
by the Hanok Village Operation Department is not an expert
but rather a tourist seeking something other than material
authenticity, ready to accept the representation of tradition
offered by the interpreters of the village. Managers of the site
appear to have invested more effort into what Ning Wang calls
“constructive authenticity,” one of the three categories of au-
thenticity he identifies, along with “objective” and “existential
authenticity.” The objects of the tourist gaze are not inherently
authentic,19 but they appear so as a consequence of a social
construct20 —­in this case, the promotional strategies created
by the Hanok Village Operation Department. Since objects do
not necessarily have to be authentic, the focus moves from an
object-­centered authenticity, which emphasizes materiality, to
the experiences a tourist site has to offer.

61
 This shift in focus has had repercussions on the preser-
vation of the Chŏnju Hanok Village: managers have allowed
partial reconstructions of old hanok and the use of inadequate
materials in restoration. Moreover, they have encouraged the
proliferation of private businesses where tourists can feel,
taste, and enjoy a traditional lifestyle through activities such
as tea ceremonies, craftmaking from handmade paper, and
sleeping in a hanok. The Hanok Village Operation Depart-
ment thus expects visitors to come for a particular experience,
a recreational involvement with the space, in which lived,
interactive, sensorial experiences overshadow the cultural and
historical exploration. This bodily engagement with the tourist
site prompts a new approach to authenticity, from the perspec-
tive of lived experiences. These differ from everyday experi-
ences in that tourists temporarily step out from their daily lives,
from the ordinary, and experience novel, exceptional, and even
bizarre things. For instance, visitors to the Chŏnju Hanok Vil-
lage can dress in the formal attire of the Chosŏn Dynasty elite
and perform a ritual; they can plainly peek inside open hanok,
despite being inhabited by strangers; or they can watch local
artisans produce crafts. Surely each of these experiences is
contrived, and the tourist is aware of the extraordinary nature
of the experience, the “staged intimacy,” as Dean MacCannell
has pointed out.21
But the visitor consents to something similar to the “fic-
tional protocol” that defines a reader’s relationship with her
book in Umberto Eco’s view; the reader accepts fiction as if it
were real, so she is not surprised, for example, by supernatural
events.22 Likewise, there is a pact that the visitor tacitly signs
when embarking on a tour, through which she acknowledges
the staged nature of the experience without diminishing its
lived authenticity. The experience remains authentic because
it constructs reality, it produces “a particular spacio-­temporal
structure” in Yi-­Fu Tuan’s terms,23 a world that totally engages
the tourist, her senses, thoughts, and values. The fact that the
experience is transitory does not make it superficial in any way:
for the time it lasts, its intensity and vitality highlight a sense
of presentness and immediacy that absorbs the self. Ning
Wang’s “existential authenticity” also places the emphasis on
activities and experiences, but in his ontological understand-
ing of experience, “tourists are preoccupied with an existential
state of Being activated by certain tourist activities,”24 they are
“in search of their authentic selves with the aid of activities
or toured objects.”25 However, it is difficult to assume that all
tourist experiences are philosophical quests for self-­discovery.
Even when viewed from the perspective of managers of heri-
tage and tour operators, it is hard to imagine that they plan
tourist experiences as a heuristic tool that would potentially

62
3. Visitors can take a peek at a Chosŏn
Dynasty Confucian ritual reenacted in
a hanok. Courtesy of Glenn Sundeen;
copyright 2014.
help the tourist find her inner self. Instead, they plan the lei-
sure component —­the sensorial, the recreational. The Chŏnju
Hanok Village is a perfect example of lived authenticity, in
which the experiences carefully prepared by the Hanok Village
Operation Department and local businesses create a reality
that satisfies the tourist’s pursuit of the uncommon.
Commercial Influence on Preservation
We can acquire a better understanding of how the village be-
came a recreational destination if we examine the practices of
preservation since the 1960s. The 1960s and 1970s witnessed
intense and sudden urbanization and industrialization, which
reshaped both the urban and rural landscapes of South Korea.
Traditional architecture located in urban areas was in need of
protection from grand-­scale construction projects, so from 1971
the Urban Planning Law allowed local governments to desig-
nate condensed areas of valuable architecture as “Preserva-
tion Areas” and also indicated the necessity to preserve urban
“Beautiful Sight Areas.” The law enforced restrictions: new
constructions needed prior investigation and approval from the
local government authorities, who verified if the area would be
damaged, but the Ministry of Culture and Information (pres-
ently the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism) gave final
permission for construction.26
The Chŏnju City Hall authorities designated the hanok
neighborhood a “Preservation Area” in 1977, creating a strict,
legally enforceable administrative control over the private
management of the houses, without proper urban planning
63
4. Local artisans allow visitors to the or financial backing. The 1977 designation was part of a more
village to watch them at work. Courtesy
comprehensive national cultural policy aimed to revive the old
of Dumontet Pascal; copyright 2014.
capitals of the ancient kingdoms (Chŏnju being one of them).
This was the grand project of the CHA in the 1970s, initiated
and carried out under the personal supervision of military
dictator Park Chung Hee (1961–1979), who was well aware of
the seminal influence of cultural policies on the economy and
politics.27 The project involved large-­scale archeological inves-
tigations, tourism development, and heavy restoration that was
understood as a form of beautification of traditional archi-
tecture, of cleansing the national heritage of any undesired
elements (e.g., traces of the first attempts to restore heritage
made by colonial Japanese administrators of patrimony).28 In
the case of Chŏnju Hanok Village, its designation as a Preser-
vation Area meant the implementation of state-­manufactured
guidelines that reflected the top-­down enforcement of cultural
policies in the Park Chung Hee era. Following these guidelines,
fences and chimneys were remodeled in the Korean style,
the buildings’ walls were decorated with Korean patterns in
order to increase a sense of “classical beauty,” and roofs were
changed to black tiles to create uniformity.29 This led to an
artificial intensification of the innate “Korean” architectural
features, a manufactured infusion of “Koreanness” typical of
the era, which disregarded the composite nature of the vil-
lage, the Western and Japanese influences.30 The CHA’s strong

64
regulation of change according to rules of aesthetic appropri-
ateness is representative of how president Park Chung Hee
conceived of preservation in the 1960s and 1970s: as a form of
state control over the management, meaning, and significance
of heritage. Park Saeyoung has noted the paradoxical way
in which 1960s and ’70s preservationists understood “origi-
nal form” and “authenticity”: changes to historic buildings
were accepted as long as they were deemed to be recovering
“Korean” and “traditional” aspects of the structure. In extreme
cases, such as Hyŏnch’ungsa, this pursuit of authenticity led
to demolishing the original building and creating complete
re­constructions that could more overtly express nationalist,
heroic, patriotic, moral, and aesthetic values.31
The preservation of Chŏnju Hanok Village has pursued
over time a similar process of intensification of the “Korean”
features of the site, hand in hand with the construction of a
narrative of representation. The Chŏnju City Hall has enforced
legislation relevant for the protection of “tradition,” laws that
were initiated and supported by the CHA. In 1987, the Chŏnju
City Hall authorities changed the designation of the Village
from “Preservation Area” to “Beautiful Sight Area,” which
entailed increased restrictions: only buildings lower than two
stories could be built, and commercial activities were limited,
in order to preserve the “genuine” traditional atmosphere
of the village.32 Moreover, according to the 1984 “Traditional
Architecture Preservation Law,” owners of traditional houses
were forbidden to make unauthorized repairs; citizens had to
apply for permission to the Ministry of Culture and Information.
Besides, any damage, loss, or change had to be reported to the
Ministry. The law also required reporting changes in ownership
or management of traditional buildings directly to the CHA.33
The intent of the law was to preserve the original architectural
features, but citizens perceived it as very restrictive. The main
criticism came from owners of hanok, who felt their property
rights were being infringed by the law. Also, the management
of designated traditional architecture (e.g., renovating, selling
a property) entailed such a high level of complicated bureau-
cracy that owners hesitated to have their properties designated
as “traditional.”34 As a consequence, residents of the Chŏnju
Hanok Village organized civil groups and started to petition the
City Hall to cancel the “Beautiful Sight Area” designation.
The authorities finally acceded in 1997 and removed the
designation,35 but beginning in 1999, the same municipal
authorities again took interest in the village, realizing the rapid
devastation of the area in the absence of a preservation policy.
Between 1999 and 2003, the Chŏnju City Hall held public hear-
ings and debates with the citizens until they reached a consen-
sus and designated the village a “Traditional Culture Area” in

65
5. Neon signs have been installed
outside this modernized hanok in order
to attract tourists. Courtesy of John
Seung-Hwan Shin; copyright 2013.
2003.36 This has remained the official designation of the site
to present. It still involves a number of restrictions that form
the preservation plan of the area37: all matters related to the
management of the Chŏnju Hanok Village are settled by the so-­
called Zonal Plan, which is authorized by the mayor. The Zonal
Plan regulates the number of stories, scale, location, position,
color, design, form, and use of a building within the village; if
owners change any of these, they first need the permission of
the committee and then final approval from the mayor.
In the process of negotiation between the residents and
the City Hall authorities, it has helped that the latter intro-
duced, in 2002, a program of subsidies for repair work, new
constructions, remodeling, or expansion of hanok (the city pro-
vides two thirds of the necessary funds, up to 50,000,000 wŏn,
roughly 45,000 U.S. dollars). This was a notable and influential
measure, still enforced today, that has reshaped the landscape
of the village because of its consequences. It appears these
funds can be obtained rather easily, since there were cases in
which houses in a satisfactory state were demolished to make
room for new construction, using public funds, or remodeled
and extended hanok were afterward transformed into commer-
cial spaces.38 Only in 2012 did local authorities revise the legal
article that regulates the period of time owners cannot make
changes (such as demolition, change of use) after receiving a
stipend.39
The objective of the subsidy program was to maintain the
area as inhabited, and the residents as satisfied with their liv-
ing conditions in updated hanok, improved with modern facili-
66
6. Totem poles, perceived as symbols
of “Koreanness” and authentic yet
long-gone rural life, greet visitors in
front of this restaurant and handicraft
experience hall. Courtesy of Dumontet
Pascal; copyright 2014.
ties such as toilets, heating systems, and functional kitchens.
The initiative had, however, the undesired effect of intensifying
the commercialization of the area, a problem the authorities
have been confronted with since the beginning of the 2000s,
when the city hosted the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Over the past
decade, more and more hanok have changed their function
from residential to commercial, and the number of modern-­
style buildings (other than hanok) has increased considerably.
As of 2012, there were 708 houses, out of which only 534 were
hanok.40 Some buildings still have the outer appearance of
a hanok, but the interiors are completely altered, since they
are not regulated; others have changed their outer features
as well,41 contrasting with the remaining traditional architec-
ture. This has created a landscape lacking coherence, which
undermines the narrative of tradition posited by the Hanok
Village Operation Department. The eclectic juxtaposition of old
and new, traditional and modern, raises questions about the
official representation of the identity of the village as ancestral
heritage, “the best-­preserved living traditional village,” as the
official website of the Chŏnju Hanok Village claims.
The Hanok Village Operation Department’s management of
the village has proved very inconsistent over time. On the one
hand, the local authorities wanted to keep alterations made
by owners and private managers to the minimum so the site
could gain prestige through increased aesthetic coherence
67
7. This miniature display at the Chŏnju
Hanji Museum shows figurines made
of traditional handmade paper (hanji),
representing the folk making kimchi
(the iconic food of Korean traditional
cuisine), dressed in traditional
costumes. The narrative of tradition is
reiterated in every detail: the handmade
paper, the clothing, the suggestion
of delicious cuisine, the nostalgia of
communities who used to do things
together. Courtesy of John Ibarra;
copyright 2011.
and longevity. On the other hand, the same authorities needed
to yield to the economic pressures and residents’ demands,
and therefore relaxed regulations. In either case, there were
negative consequences that the Chŏnju City Hall could not
completely counteract: in the 1990s, limited by restrictive regu-
lations, the residents threatened to let the houses deteriorate
or abandon them; then since 2002, encouraged by subsidies,
investors have overcommercialized the area in response to
the gradual raise in tourist numbers, from 355,000 annually
in 2000 to 2,866,000 in 2009.42 Although a large proportion
of the local tourism industry is catering to a national audi-
ence (through learning projects for school children, activi-
ties for families, revivals of Confucian traditions), the North
Chŏlla Province has invested effort in recent years to attract
more foreign visitors to its capital city, Chŏnju.43 In correla-
tion with this increase in popularity as a tourism destination,
the proportion of nonresidential buildings in the village has
increased from 11.6 percent in 1998 to 29.1 percent in 2010.44
The increasing revenues brought by the tourism industry and
the opportunities created by the commercialization of the area
attract investors who turn their hanok into restaurants, inns,
experience halls, or private museums.45 Although this process
of commercialization was unintended by the Hanok Village Op-
eration Department, they have been accomplices to it, as long
as the building of new hanok, repair works, or restoration are
not more strictly regulated in order to ensure more authenticity
and uniformity.
68
 The commercialization of the site is a symptomatic con-
sequence of how preservation measures undertaken by local
authorities clash with the aspirations of residents and local
businesses, who follow their own agenda and protect their
properties while having little interest in the material authentic-
ity of a patrimonial site. In other areas of traditional architec-
ture as well, authorities in charge of preservation, at the local
or national level, have made compromises under pressures
coming from the civil society.46

Architectural Mimicry and Compensatory Lived Authenticity

After the removal of the “Beautiful Sight Area” designation
in 1997 and the introduction of the subsidy program in 2002,
the landscape of the Chŏnju Hanok Village gradually changed.
Now, hanok of recent date stand next to houses almost one
hundred years old, but there is no acknowledgment of the age
or origin of each building. The absence of onsite interpreta-
tion for the majority of individual houses creates an apparent
uniformity most likely intended by the Hanok Village Opera-
tion Department, who can thus advertise it as representatively
traditional —­understood as Chosŏn— ­architecture. The un­
informed (or not preoccupied) visitor might get the impression
of a coherent space; while some innovations and alterations
are more visible than others, it takes a connoisseur’s eye to tell
the difference between a hanok from the 1930s and one from
the 1970s, or a house slightly departing from the structure
typical of a Chosŏn Dynasty hanok. New houses are still being
built, replicating in various degrees the “traditional” features
of the existing architecture, in a multiplication of hanok that
adds to the confusing identity of the space as not entirely mod-
ern but not entirely traditional either.
The Chŏnju City Hall needs to preapprove new construc-
tions, and height, structure, and style are regulated by local
legislation. Still, every investor who has a commercial or
cultural interest in the village can replicate a hanok, including
the desired alterations and interior improvements, as long as
the building abides by the minimal guidelines, which control
mainly the outer appearance of the buildings. The lack of
knowledge about the age of individual houses and the mixture
of residential and commercial hanok create, in the end, an
impression of architectural mimicry: the site does not seem a
real landscape; it only bears a limited, remote resemblance to
an actual community, possibly from the nineteenth century.
Recent hanok built mainly for commercial purposes suggest
a multiplication of architectural copies that undermines the
authority of the truly old, genuine architecture of the 1920s and
1930s. Surrounded and overwhelmed by the multiplying new

69
8. A woman clad in traditional costume (hanbok) performs a tea ceremony for the visitors at an experience hall. These spaces
materialize tradition for the urban or foreign sightseers, but at the same time they commodify it. Courtesy of Kevin Jackson, 2010.
9. A display of folk tools in a hanok
courtyard, again another way of
representing the past. Courtesy of
Kevin Jackson, 2010.
constructions, the colonial-­era architecture is at risk to lose its
authentic aura and become commonplace, trivial, undifferenti-
ated. Therefore, efforts to preserve the oldest architecture are
sabotaged by the proliferation of copies, as long as the oldest
hanok are not highlighted through proper onsite explanation
and marked out from the rest.
Despite the fact that the Chŏnju Hanok Village is an
idealized simulacrum of a traditional Chosŏn Dynasty urban
environment, preservationists at the Hanok Village Operation
Department have interpreted the site as authentic by portray-
ing it as the stylistically appropriate context for individually
listed monuments built during the Chosŏn Dynasty, and also
because of the vast array of lived experiences it offers. For
the population who lives in huge apartment blocks in highly
concentrated urban areas and the foreign tourists in search of
Korean tradition, the experiential approach to the past might
present a satisfactory degree of lived authenticity. This quest
for a vanished rural life, perceived as the epitome of tradition,
has generated what Laurel Kendall has named “the nostalgia
market,” in which people consume the recent past in symbolic
forms.47
Chŏnju, too, is the scene of such a nostalgic exploration
of tradition. The city is famous for its traditional handicrafts,
such as handmade paper, sedge products, stoneware, and
handheld fans that can be examined, bought, or even made on
the spot. Equally attractive are the local food, traditional opera
(p’ansori) performances, and staying overnight at a hanok. All
these life experiences infuse more authenticity into the visit to
71
the village and materialize the consumption of the proposed
representation of tradition. As Okpyo Moon has observed
in her analysis of tourist participation in the Andong Village
lineage houses, visitors are less concerned with the correct-
ness of the narrative of tradition, and simply desire to consume
history and the lifestyle of the Chosŏn Dynasty elite, or, as she
calls it, “yangban-­ness.”48 The hands-­on experiences create
the impression that tourists have access to the past, a sense
of immediacy and presentness in relation to tradition. The sat-
isfaction of “real” experiences relieves their nostalgia for the
past and alleviates the downfalls of intense urbanization that
has excluded the traditional and the old from their lives.
Visitors to the Chŏnju Hanok Village are invited through
persuasive promotion strategies to consume not only space
and a wide variety of lived experiences but foremost a certain
representation of tradition, which situates the site in the glori-
fied Chosŏn era, despite its more recent origin. This narrative
of old ensures the elevation of the village to a coveted level of
prestige and refinement, particularly possible due to the in-
tentional absence of in ­situ signage making clear the relatively
young age of the hanok and their eclectic, even discordant
styles. Failed efforts to strictly regulate preservation endanger
the identity of the site and allow the multiplication of architec-
tural copies. As visitors escape the impression of simulacrum
by forming their own consumption strategies, interest in the
material authenticity of the site is replaced by a new way of
valuing authenticity through lived experiences.

Biography
Codrut�a Sîntionean, assistant professor in the Department of Asian Languages and
Literatures at Babeş-­Bolyai University in Cluj-­Napoca, Romania, has been in charge
of the section of Korean Language and Literature since its creation in 2008.

Notes
This work was supported by the Academy of Korean Studies Grant (AKS-­2012-­R78).
I am grateful to the Academy for its generous support. I would also like to thank
Professor Jorge Otero-­Pailos, whose thorough reading of my paper and suggestions
have considerably helped me clarify it.
1
Examples include the Hahoe Folk Village in Andong, Yangdong Village in Kyŏngju,
Pukch’on Hanok Village in Seoul, and Chŏnnam Village in Chŏnnam.
2
The present article uses the McCune-­Reischauer system for romanization.
3
The Chŏnju City Hall official website, http://www.jeonju.go.kr/open_content/
branch/organization/organization.jsp?pcd=20H001000000&pno=36.
4
The structure and mission of the committee is regulated by municipal ordinances,
available at http://www.elis.go.kr/newlaib/laibLaws/h1126/laws_nw.jsp?lawsNum
=45110106211003.
5
See the presentation of the Chŏnju Hanok Village on the Korean-­version map made
by the Hanok Village Operation Department. The map is available at http://tour
.jeonju.go.kr/index.sko?menuCd=AA03008000000.
6
Kim Wŏn, “‘Hangukchŏgin kŏt’ ae chŏnyu rŭl tullŏssan kyŏngjaeng— ­minjok
chunghŭng, naejaejŏk palchŏn kŭrigo taejung munhwa ae hŭnjŏk” [“The com-
petition concerning appropriation of ‘things Korean’: Revival of nation, theory of
indigenous development, and trace of popular culture”], Sahwoe wa yŏksa [Society
and history] 93 (2012): 187.
7
The name of the country, Taehan Minguk (Republic of Korea; literally “The People
of the Great Han”) underscores this ethnic identity.
8
The Chŏnju Hanok Village official website, http://tour.jeonju.go.kr/index.sko#.

72
9
The phrase “Chŏnju, the thousand-­years-­old capital” is persistent in presentations
promoting Chŏnju tours for the local and national tourism market, from the official
website of the Hanok Village Operation Department to the Cultural Heritage Ad-
ministration’s (CHA) advertisements supporting tourism to Chŏnju and newspaper
articles exalting the traditional features of the city.
10
Ch’oe Chŏng-­suk, “Han nune bonŭn Hanok Maŭl ŭi yŏksa: Ch’ŏn nyŏn kodo
‘Chŏnju ŭi ŏlgul’ Chŏnju Hanok Maŭl” [“The history of the Hanok Village at a single
glance: Chŏnju Hanok Village— ­‘The image of Chŏnju,’ the thousand-­years-­old capi-
tal”], Chŏnbugin [Chŏnbuk people], August 7, 2014, http://www.jeonbukin.com/
news/articleView.html?idxno=37.
11
The Japan–Korea Protectorate Treaty of 1905 marked the onset of the colonial
occupation of Korea by the Empire of Japan, formally begun in 1910 and ended in
1945.
12
Nam Hae-­gyŏng has conducted a survey of the Chŏnju Hanok Village between
2010 and 2012, and has differentiated the hanok by age: 22 were built in the 1920s,
33 in the 1930s, 105 in the 1940s, 59 in the 1950s, 44 in the 1960s, 105 in the
1970s, 33 in the 1980s, 26 in the 1990s, 24 in the 2000s. Nam Hae-­gyŏng, “Chŏnju
Hanok Maŭl pojŏn chŏngch’aek kwa kyŏnggwan ŭi pyŏnhwa” [“The preservation
policy of Chŏnju Hanok Village and changes in its landscape”], Kŏnch’uk kwa tosi
konggan [Architectural and urban space] 12 (2013): 60.
13
The CHA interprets the Koreans’ relocation as a form of resistance to the Japanese
advancement intra muros. The neighborhood that emerged, now the Chŏnju Hanok
Village, is “an expression of the opposition to the Japanese dwellings and of na-
tional pride.” Cultural Heritage Administration, Munhwajaehyŏng chiyŏk chaesaeng
chŏngch’aek hwan’gyŏng chosŏng yŏngu: Munhwajae haengbok maŭl kakkugi saŏp
ch’ujin pangan [Research of the regional revival policy for heritage: Development
plan of the heritage of “Well-­Being Villages”] (Taejŏn: Munhwajaech’ŏng, 2013),
40. Present in studies like the one put together by the CHA, written by heritage
bureaucrats and mainly for an expert readership, this interpretation is missing from
the onsite explanation of the Village.
14
Guy Podoler, Monuments, Memory, and Identity: Constructing the Colonial Past in
South Korea (Bern: Peter Lang, 2011), 129.
15
There are seven categories of national heritage defined by the 1962 “Heritage
Preservation Law”: “national treasures,” “treasures,” “historic sites,” “scenic
sites,” “natural monuments,” “important intangible cultural heritage,” and “impor-
tant folklore cultural heritage.” The number attached to each heritage item is not a
ranking, but an inventory number, suggesting the order in which cultural properties
have been designated ever since the beginning of heritage management during
the colonial period. For an analysis of the continuity of colonial practices even in
liberated Korea and the introduction of the first preservation law on the Korean
Peninsula in 1916, see Hyung Il Pai, “The Creation of National Treasures and Monu-
ments: The 1916 Japanese Laws on the Preservation of Korean Remains and Relics
and Their Colonial Legacies,” Korean Studies 25, no. 1 (2001): 72–95.
16
See the official website of the Chŏnju Hanok Village, http://tour.jeonju.go.kr/
index.sko?menuCd=AA06005000000.
17
The most extensive and costly restoration project undertaken by the CHA in
recent years has focused on the restoration and partial reconstruction of Chosŏn
Dynasty royal palaces. Started in 1990 and planned for ten years, the project took
two decades to complete. The scale of the project and the publicity it received have
situated the Chosŏn royal heritage at the center of the discourse about Korean tra-
dition. Cultural Heritage Administration, Munhwajaech’ŏng 50 nyŏnsa [The fifty-­year
history of the cultural heritage administration], 2nd vol. (Seoul: Munhwajaech’ŏng
2011), 551.
18
Timothy R. Tangherlini, “Chosŏn Memories: Spectatorship, Ideology, and the Ko-
rean Folk Village,” in Sitings: Critical Approaches to Korean Geography, ed. Timothy R.
Tangherlini and Sallie Yea (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2008), 73.
19
John Urry and Jonas Larsen argue that the gaze regulates the tourist experience
and recognizes its uncommon nature, not the quest for authenticity. John Urry and
Jonas Larsen, The Tourist Gaze 3.0. (Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE, 2011), 13–14.
20
Ning Wang, “Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience,” Annals of Tourism
Research 26, no. 2 (1999): 351.
21
Dean MacCannell, The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1999), 99.
22
Umberto Eco, Six Walks in the Fictional Woods (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1995), n.p.
23
Yi-­Fu Tuan, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press, 1977), 131.
24
Wang, “Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience,” 359.
25
Ibid., 360.

73
26
Articles 18 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law (effective since 1971), available at
http://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=5930#0000.
27
For an analysis of the use of national heritage in shaping the ideal citizens that
the Park Chung Hee government envisioned, see Codrut�a Sîntionean, “Heritage
Practices during the Park Chung Hee Era,” in Key Papers on Korea: Essays Celebrat-
ing 25 Years of the Centre of Korean Studies, SOAS, University of London, ed.
Andrew David Jackson, 253–74 (Leiden, U.K.: Global Oriental, 2014).
28
Robert Oppenheim, Kyŏngju Things: Assembling Place (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 2008), 33.
29
Yi Chong-­se, “5 kaenyŏn kyehoegŭro 18 ŏk t’uip Yi-­jo munhwagwŏn mandŭnŭn
kodo Chŏnju” [The five-­year plan to invest 1.8 billion in the Chŏnju capital, shaped
by the culture of Yi dynasty], Tonga ilbo, October 27, 1976. http://newslibrary.naver
.com/.
30
Korean-­style hanok represent 64 percent of the total 534 hanok; Western-­style
ones, 19 percent; Japanese-­style, 7 percent; and a mixture of styles, 10 percent.
All of them can be considered modern hanok, not traditional hanok. Nam, “Chŏnju
Hanok Maŭl pojŏn chŏngch’aek kwa kyŏnggwan ŭi pyŏnhwa,” 61.
31
This is a meaningful case of excessive restoration done in the 1970s. In Park
Saeyoung’s analysis, Hyŏnch’ungsa is a completely reinvented site, a state project
culminating with the creation of the most honored national hero, Admiral Yi Sunsin.
Park Saeyoung, “National Heroes and Monuments in South Korea: Patriotism, Mod-
ernization, and Park Chung Hee’s Remaking of Yi Sunsin’s Shrine,” The Asia-­Pacific
Journal 24-­3-­10 (June 14, 2010), http://japanfocus.org/-­Saeyoung-­Park/3374.
32
Ch’oe Chŏng-­suk, “Han nune bonŭn Hanok Maŭl ŭi yŏksa: Ch’ŏn nyŏn kodo
‘Chŏnju ŭi ŏlgul’ Chŏnju Hanok Maŭl.”
33
Cultural Heritage Administration, Munhwajaech’ŏng 50 nyŏnsa, 268.
34
Ibid., 454.
35
Even the 1984 Traditional Architecture Preservation Law was abolished in 1999,
following public discontent all over the country. Lacking support from the public,
the enforcement of the law proved difficult, and since its objectives and designa-
tion targets overlapped with those of the 1962 Heritage Preservation Law and the
1971 Urban Planning Law, the CHA agreed to its cancellation. Cultural Heritage
Administration, Munhwajaech’ŏng 50 nyŏnsa, 454.
36
Nam, “Chŏnju Hanok Maŭl pojŏn chŏngch’aek kwa kyŏnggwan ŭi pyŏnhwa,”
61–62.
37
The following rules are available on ELIS (Enhanced Local Laws and Regulations
Information System), http://www.elis.go.kr/newlaib/laibLaws/h1126/laws_nw.jsp
?lawsNum=45110106211003.
38
Nam, “Chŏnju Hanok Maŭl pojŏn chŏngch’aek kwa kyŏnggwan ŭi pyŏnhwa,” 64.
39
See article 14, ELIS, http://www.elis.go.kr/newlaib/laibLaws/h1126/laws_nw
.jsp?lawsNum=45110106211003.
40
Nam, “Chŏnju Hanok Maŭl pojŏn chŏngch’aek kwa kyŏnggwan ŭi pyŏnhwa,” 60.
41
The remodeling of the buildings for business entails changes of the façade or the
construction of a new building in front of it, alteration of color and exterior aspect,
addition of extra stories, use of modern materials, such as inner iron frames, bricks,
or even concrete.
42
This is the reported number of tourists to the Chŏnju Hanok Village alone. Chŏnju
City boasted 4.8 million visitors in 2009, double from 2000. Chang Sŏng-­hwa,
Chŏnju Hanok Maŭl chosŏng saŏp ŭi tosim chaesaeng sŏnggwa punsŏk mit kaesŏn
pangan [The promotion of Chŏnju Hanok Village: City center revival outcome analy-
sis and improvement plan] (Chŏnju: Chŏnbuk Palchŏn Yŏnguwŏn, 2010), 79.
43
The year 2012 was declared “Visit the North Chŏlla Province Year”: the provincial
authorities subsidized a free shuttle bus taking international tourists from Seoul
to the famous sites of the province. The program proved successful in attracting
foreigners, so in 2013 the same program was run, only for the Seoul–Chŏnju route.
See application site here, http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/FU/FU_EN_15.jsp
?cid=1797480. The author has been on this tour herself, in August 2013, and the
most striking thing was that the bus took travelers directly to the entrance of the
Chŏnju Hanok Village, which was also the departing point. It seemed that the local
authorities in charge of tourism management expected visitors to spend their time
mostly at this site, reiterating its centrality in the promotion of local tradition.
44
Chang, Chŏnju Hanok Maŭl chosŏng saŏp ŭi tosim chaesaeng sŏnggwa punsŏk
mit kaesŏn pangan, 80.
45
For instance, owners who choose to open their properties to the public have the
right to charge a visitor’s fee.
46
A case in point is Pukch’on, the Hanok Village located in Seoul, in an area highly
coveted by real estate investors. This, too, was designated a “Folk Scenery Area” in
1976 and a “Beautiful Sight Area” in 1983, but due to public discontent, the Seoul
City Hall authorities softened the rules and allowed the construction of slightly

74
taller buildings in the area. As a consequence, the number of hanok decreased
dramatically, being replaced with modern-­style residential buildings.
Similarly, owners of lineage houses in the Andong Hahoe Folk Village— ­the
epitome of pristine traditional architecture in South Korea— ­negotiated with the
CHA until they were allowed to install modern facilities in their homes, in order to
stimulate tourism and also improve the life quality of residents. Andong Hahoe Folk
Village is designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and an “important folklore
cultural heritage,” and some houses in the village are designated individually as
well (as “national treasures” or “treasures”), so in this case owners had to negoti-
ate permission for change at the highest level of heritage management bureau-
cracy, the CHA, which complicated things even more. Moon Okpyo, “Guests of
Lineage Houses: Tourist Commoditization of Confucian Cultural Heritage in Korea,”
in Consuming Korean Tradition in Early and Late Modernity: Commodification, Tour-
ism, and Performance, ed. Laurel Kendall (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press,
2011), 95.
47
Laurel Kendall, “Introduction: Material Modernity, Consumable Tradition,” in
Consuming Korean Tradition in Early and Late Modernity: Commodification, Tour-
ism, and Performance, ed. Laurel Kendall (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press,
2011), 6.
48
Moon, “Guests of Lineage Houses,” 94.

75