The reassessment of the 'Jeongdogaja,' a metal typeface potentially predating the world's oldest known metal type, the Jikji, by 138 years, is set to be decided on August 13. However, it has come to light that some experts involved in the 2017 review of the Jeongdogaja's designation as a treasure are still part of the Cultural Heritage Committee's movable cultural heritage division. This raises questions about whether individuals who participated in the previous review should also be involved in the reassessment of the same artifact.
Current regulations of the Cultural Heritage Committee stipulate that members or experts who have directly participated in a case should be excluded from investigation, review, and decision-making processes. Given that an audit revealed significant omissions and incorrect statistical applications during the 2017 review, the eligibility of those involved in that process must be scrutinized if the reassessment proceeds.
The Jeongdogaja is believed to have been used to print the treasure No. 758, 'Nammyo Cheonhwa Sang Song Jeongdogaja,' created in 1239. If this claim is scientifically verified, it would predate the Jikji, printed in 1377, by 138 years. While the Jikji exists only in printed form, the Jeongdogaja is a physical metal type, which has garnered significant academic interest.
The application for the Jeongdogaja's designation as a treasure was rejected during the 2017 Cultural Heritage Committee review. The reasons cited included doubts about its use as a printing type and insufficient verification of its provenance and ownership history.
Audit Reveals Issues in 2017 Review Process
The controversy reignited last year when the results of an audit were made public during a national assembly inspection. It was revealed that key results from typesetting experiments were not properly communicated during the 2017 review, and there were issues with the statistical analysis.
The designation investigation report at the time recorded that the sizes of the printed versions of 'Sok Myeong Yeok' and 'Seok Bo Sang Jeol' were reduced by 0.3 to 0.5 cm and 0.8 cm, respectively, compared to the original prints. However, the review secretary reported that there was no size difference for 'Sok Myeong Yeok,' and the 0.8 cm shrinkage noted in 'Seok Bo Sang Jeol' was not communicated to the committee members.
Problems were also identified in the statistical analysis. If the advice from the National Statistical Office had been properly applied, the conclusion should have indicated that typesetting was possible, but the actual review concluded it was not feasible.
This means that the decision on whether to designate the Jeongdogaja as a treasure was made without the committee members receiving objective data that could have influenced the outcome. Following the audit's findings, the Cultural Heritage Administration has indicated the need to reassess the authenticity of the Jeongdogaja and has been considering the possibility of a reassessment.
Concerns Over Fairness in Reassessment Process
The key issue is who will conduct the investigation and make the judgment if a reassessment is decided. The movable cultural heritage division of the Cultural Heritage Committee, established in May, is responsible for artifacts like the Jeongdogaja.
Among the experts in this division, two are known to have participated in the 2017 review of the Jeongdogaja. One has been appointed seven times consecutively and has served for over 14 years, while the other has been appointed six times consecutively for about 12 years.
While long-term appointments do not violate current laws, the involvement of individuals who previously participated in the review of the same artifact raises concerns. Current presidential regulations state that members or experts who have directly engaged with a case should be excluded from investigation, review, and decision-making.
Legally, the question arises whether the 2026 reassessment falls under the same 'case' as the 2017 review. If deemed the same case, those who were directly involved in the previous review would be subject to exclusion under the regulations.
Even if the Cultural Heritage Administration views this process as a separate new case from the 2017 review, the same regulations allow parties to request the exclusion of specific members or experts if they believe a fair investigation and review cannot be expected.
Potential Legal Implications from 2017 Review Errors
The issues identified in the 2017 review process extend beyond procedural fairness. Depending on how the documentation and reporting were conducted, there could be criminal implications.
If the official responsible for the review had the authority to prepare official review materials or reports and knowingly recorded different information from the actual measurements, it could lead to charges of falsifying official documents.
It is crucial to distinguish between simple errors in judgment and the act of misrepresenting objective facts. If the actual measurements indicated a shrinkage of 0.3 to 0.5 cm, but the official document stated 'no difference,' this is different from a mere difference of professional opinion.
Conversely, the evaluation of statistical results regarding the feasibility of typesetting involves professional judgment. This aspect requires investigation into who applied which analytical methods and on what basis conclusions were altered.
Abuse of authority is also a potential concern. If the review secretary used their official authority to direct or supervise in a way that led to a specific review conclusion, it could raise issues of abuse of power under criminal law.
Thus, the focus of the investigation into the 2017 review should not only be on the miscommunication of data but also on who prepared or reported incorrect information, what directives were exchanged during the process, and whether other review participants were aware of these issues.
Long-Term Committee Members Raise Questions About Reassessment Integrity
The issue of long-term appointments is again coming under scrutiny in light of the reassessment. In 2019, the government amended the Cultural Heritage Committee regulations to limit the number of consecutive terms for members to two, aiming to enhance the fairness of committee operations.
However, in 2023, the regulations were revised again, removing the limit on consecutive terms. While the two-term limit applied to 'members,' it did not extend to experts, meaning the long-term appointments of the current experts cannot be deemed a violation of regulations.
The crux of the issue is not the number of terms served but whether it is appropriate for the same individuals who have long been involved in the investigation of a specific artifact to reassess that same artifact.
While there is a need for experienced experts to maintain professionalism, having individuals who were directly involved in past reviews reassess the same issues presents a different challenge. This is why the government has established separate provisions for exclusion, avoidance, and recusal.
Concerns About Trust in Cultural Heritage Administration
The recent reassignment of Hwang, the director of the Cultural Heritage Administration who served as the review secretary for the Jeongdogaja in 2017, has also drawn attention. Hwang was transferred to the Intangible Heritage Division in Jeonju in January and returned to the headquarters in Daejeon as the director of the Natural Heritage Division on August 7, just six days before the expected decision on the Jeongdogaja reassessment.
While the Natural Heritage Division is not directly responsible for the movable cultural heritage division that reviews the Jeongdogaja, the Cultural Heritage Administration has stated that this personnel change is unrelated to the Jeongdogaja issue.
Thus, the timing of the reassignment alone cannot definitively link it to the reassessment. What needs to be clarified is Hwang's actual role in this review process.
It is essential to determine whether Hwang provided the 2017 review materials for this process, discussed the direction of the Jeongdogaja review with responsible officials, or consulted with committee members or experts on related matters. Given the audit's findings regarding the reporting process, the Cultural Heritage Administration must clarify Hwang's level of involvement in this reassessment.
Trust in the Reassessment Process
If the Cultural Heritage Administration decides on the reassessment of the Jeongdogaja on August 13, the first step must be to clarify the composition of the review committee. It is crucial to identify which current members and experts participated in the 2017 review and what roles they played in that investigation and judgment.
It must also be established whether these individuals will be excluded from the current investigation and review. If they determine that this is not the same case and therefore not subject to exclusion, they need to provide the rationale for that decision and whether there are any grounds for avoidance or recusal.
Additionally, the roles of individuals from the Cultural Heritage Administration who were involved in the 2017 review, including Hwang, should be disclosed. If this reassessment is a process to reconsider issues stemming from the previous review, it is essential to distance those who contributed to the previous problems from the current judgment.
Trust in the outcome will be difficult to achieve if those making the decisions are intertwined with the past review. This is especially true given the audit's findings that key data was omitted and statistical results were not accurately reflected during the 2017 review.
As the Cultural Heritage Administration prepares for the reassessment, the first priority must be to clarify who will be involved in the review process.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.