Human civilization has progressed through the clash of new truths and established authorities, as seen with Galileo's heliocentrism and Darwin's theory of evolution. The essence of scholarship is to revise previous judgments in light of new evidence. However, when academic authority merges with administrative power, the focus can shift from uncovering the truth to preserving past decisions.
The administration of the Jeongdo metal type by the Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea exemplifies this issue. The Jeongdo metal type, revealed to the world in 2010, was nominated for treasure designation the following year but was rejected by the Cultural Heritage Committee in 2017. Since then, allegations of omitted and distorted scientific investigation data and coercion of officials to vote against the designation have emerged. Despite audits and national inspections, the appropriateness and accountability of the review process remain unresolved after 16 years.
If it can be proven that the Jeongdo metal type was produced before 1239 and used in the printing of the "Nammyo Cheonhwa Sang Song Jeongdo," it would provide tangible evidence of metal type that predates the "Jikji Simche Yojeol," published in 1377, by at least 138 years. This artifact has the potential to shed new light on a significant record in the history of global printing culture. Therefore, the review by national institutions assessing its historical value must be free from bias or administrative convenience.
Concerns were raised during the 2017 treasure designation review regarding discrepancies in the size of the metal type and the printed versions, which were omitted or misrepresented in the final report. There were also allegations that the expert's tentative judgment of "likely" was changed to a definitive "confirmed." If the state cannot ensure the accuracy of foundational data in assessing historical value, the reliability of the review results is inevitably compromised.
Subsequent analyses related to audits indicated that, based on advice from the National Statistical Office, some metal types could indeed be printed. This necessitates a reevaluation of the previous judgment that deemed printing impossible. It is essential to clarify how the investigation data was altered and how it influenced the rejection decision. The rationale of unclear excavation circumstances must also be examined for fairness compared to other cultural heritage standards.
Statements made by the officials involved raise serious questions about the fairness of the review. A certain official, who served as the review secretary in the Cultural Heritage Administration's Cultural Heritage Division in 2017, reportedly suggested during a meeting that rejecting the designation would ease the burden on the administration. During a national inspection on October 8, Democratic Party lawmaker Lim O-kyung pointed this out based on meeting records, to which Heo Min, the head of the Cultural Heritage Administration, acknowledged the inappropriateness of the comment.
If a public servant responsible for assessing the historical value of national heritage cited administrative convenience as a reason for rejection, it constitutes a dereliction of duty. The role of this official in the reporting of review materials and the rejection decision, as well as their involvement in subsequent verification processes, must be clarified. Investigations should also determine whether undue influence was exerted to maintain previous judgments or delay re-evaluations.
The role of another official, who was a full-time expert at the time, must also be clarified. This individual expressed a negative judgment regarding the printability of the Jeongdo metal type but later indicated that some metal types could be printed in subsequent audit analyses. Furthermore, it is reported that this individual participated in discussions related to follow-up actions after the audit. If an expert involved in the initial judgment participates in the review of that judgment, the independence of the verification process cannot be guaranteed.
The academic relationship between former Cultural Heritage Committee Chair C and the aforementioned official, as well as the influence of those involved in the review on subsequent verifications, should also be examined. The National Heritage Committee is not an academic social club that protects the authority of specific professors; it is a public review body that assesses the value of national heritage on behalf of the people. If review authority is concentrated around specific academic lineages and networks, supported by bureaucratic organizations, the risk increases that existing judgments will take precedence over scientific evidence.
Public officials must cease the practice of deferring to the committee's expert judgments while the committee shifts responsibility to the materials provided by administrative agencies. Current regulations of the National Heritage Committee stipulate the disqualification of committee members or experts directly involved in the case. The process of reassessing the appropriateness of past reviews must eliminate conflicts of interest from the outset. Expecting fair reviews while allowing the potential collusion of a closed group of experts and bureaucratic organizations is unrealistic.
During the national inspection on October 23, lawmakers Lim O-kyung and Jo Gye-won highlighted that the scientific investigation results conducted previously were not adequately reflected in the 2017 review process. Heo Min, head of the Cultural Heritage Administration, agreed to form a new review committee and stated a commitment to thoroughly verify the existing 101 metal types. The Cultural Heritage Administration must compare the 2017 investigation report, review materials, and audit results to clarify the circumstances leading to the rejection decision and identify the accountability of those involved.
Even if a new comprehensive solicitation is pursued, the issues of omitted and distorted investigation data must not be postponed. Conflicts of interest among past review participants must be eliminated, allowing independent experts to review the findings related to the existing 101 metal types. Confirming the accuracy of already secured scientific data and correcting the flawed review process should be prioritized before any new investigations.
The values that the Cultural Heritage Administration must uphold are truth, justice, and freedom. In the face of new evidence, it must relinquish past authority, apply the same standards to everyone, and guarantee free academic verification. The position of the National Heritage Committee is not a lifetime appointment for specific experts, nor can historical truth be the exclusive domain of any academic faction. The Cultural Heritage Administration must dismantle the closed expert cartel and bureaucratic practices to serve historical truth. History can wait, but the administration responsible for accountability before history must not delay any longer.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.