Placemaking Landscape Materialities Offprint PDF

별쇄본
연구논문·한국문화인류학 50–2 : 405~446(2017. 7) 한국문화인류학회
Place - making, Landscape and Materialities:

Whales and Social Practices in Ulsan, Korea1)
Bradley Tatar*
1. Introduction
Every year, the city of Ulsan on the southeast coast of Korea

celebrates the Ulsan Whale Festival to commemorate the history of
whaling in the fishing village of Jangsaengpo. To revive the memories
of whaling, the festival organizers provide a free taste of whale meat.
Those who desire a bigger taste can purchase a dish of whale meat
from the concessions stand, or else from the numerous restaurants
that adjoin the festival area. Meanwhile, legions of children seated on
* Associate Professor, Division of General Studies, UNIST[Ulsan National Institute of

Science and Technology], bradleytatar@gmail.com
1) This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) Grant
funded by the Korean Government(MSIP) (No. NRF–2015R1A5A7037825).
406·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
plastic mats are absorbed in the creative act of drawing and painting
pictures of whales. These children are participants in the Whale
Drawing Contest, an annual competition which produces fanciful,
colorful images of whales frolicking in the sea, and living their lives
as happy individuals much in the manner of humans. As throngs of
festival goers walk along the wharf, one foreign visitor is heard to
say to another in an irate tone, “They say that this event is celebrated
because they love whales, but then they are here eating the whales.
How can they love whales if they eat them?”
This episode, which is taken from my field observations of the
Ulsan Whale Festival in 2011, illustrates what appears to be a
contradiction between celebrating whales as magnificent creatures
and eating whales as a delicious sushi. From the perspective of the
foreign visitor, the contradictions were clearly visible at the festival.
However, what the visitor to the festival may not have understood
is that serving whale meat and creating artwork to glorify whales
are merely two different ways of materializing whales. Artwork is a
material representation of a whale for visual consumption, and whale
meat is an ingestible material with gustatory attractions for certain
consumers. These are material productions to be consumed in Ulsan,
a city with more than 100 whale meat restaurants—the highest
concentration in Korea(코리아타임즈, 2010.07.11.).
Korean environmentalists have also criticized the Ulsan whale
festival, arguing that the tradition it celebrates is merely invented for
increasing the sale of whale meat at the local restaurants(오마이뉴
스, 2017.05.26.). Some have argued that eating whale meat is not an
authentic part of Korean culture(중앙데일리, 2005.06.23.). However,

Place-making, Landscape and Materialities·407
although a culture represents an “invented tradition,” this does not

mean that the tradition is unimportant. In fact, the invention of a
cultural tradition suggests that such a tradition is needed, because
it fulfills vital social functions. It is the task of the anthropologist to
identify how the traditions are invented, and to illustrate how the
traditions function. One of the vital functions of the Ulsan whale
culture is place–making. The tradition which is locally known as
“Ulsan whale culture” 울산고래문화 [ulsangoraemunhwa] is invented
through the performance of social practices, which are carried out in
a place designed for the reproduction of the culture.
Why does the city of Ulsan need “whale culture,” when the
city is primarily an industrial hub of shipbuilding, automotive
manufacturing and petrochemicals? A detailed study of the growth
and development of the city of Ulsan is beyond the scope of this
article, but I point to the existence of an ongoing political project
which seeks to create a local identity connected to whales and
whaling. Ulsan whale culture is an invented tradition which has
been promoted by local politicians, particularly by the former Ulsan
Nam–gu(South District) Chief Executive Lee Che–ik and former Chief
Executive Kim Doo–gyeom, and by current Ulsan Mayor Kim Gi–
hyeon as well. The creation of Ulsan whale culture has been justified
as a program of urban reconstruction(Lee 2003), as a way to generate
a tourism industry(부산일보, 2010.6.25.), and as a way to create a
brand name for the city(경상일보, 2009.08.18.). The politicians are
supported by a local civic organization known as the Whale Culture
Preservation Association 고래문화보존회 [goraemunhwabojonhoe],
and are also allied with the whale meat restaurant owners organized
408·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
as the Jangsaengpo Whale Meat Merchants’ Cooperative 장생포고래

상인협동조합 [jangsaengpo goraesanginhyeopdongjohap]. Ulsan is
a city of shipyard and automotive plant workers, but it is also a city
of industrial workers who eat whale meat.
Whale meat itself is only one of the numerous objects produced by
the campaign to create an Ulsan whale culture. The idea behind this
campaign is that whale meat is not merely a consumer item or a part
of consumer culture, but that it is part of a social identity with deep
roots in history(Lee 2003). Critics have argued that this campaign only
reflects the ideas of the political elite, and that it does not represent
the culture of Jangsaengpo(울산저널, 2014.10.21.). Nevertheless,
irrespective of whose identity is (or is not) represented by Ulsan
whale culture, the campaign has reshaped the physical environment
with the construction of an elaborate site for tourism and heritage.
By reshaping the material landscape, social practices are promoted
which convey the idea that Ulsan’s identity is historically linked to
whaling. Over 500,000 Koreans visit Jangsaengpo every year(서울
신문, 2013.08.17.), and they participate in the social practices which
communicate the idea that whaling is the heart of Ulsan’s identity.

The goal of this article is to describe the production of a material
landscape intended by its designers to communicate and reproduce a
culture and identity unique to Ulsan.
The political elites of Ulsan have created an elaborate spatial
apparatus for the invention and dissemination of the tradition,
called the Special Zone for Whale Culture 고래문화특구
[goraemunhwateukgu, hereafter SZWC] of Jangsaengpo. This
special economic zone was created in 2009 by the Ministry of
Knowledge Economy, and it combines many different forms in

which whales can be consumed and enjoyed—not only at the time of
the Ulsan Whale Festival, but throughout the year. These include a
museum of the history of Jangsaengpo, a performing dolphin show,
a whale–watching cruise, a replica of the village of Jangsaengpo as
a whaling village in the 1970s, a sculpture garden, and a photo–
zone with replicas of 7 different species of whales. In addition,
some 25 restaurants specializing in whale meat are located inside of
the SZWC. Clearly, the SZWC specializes in producing whales in
consumable forms—not only for eating, but also for viewing, for
photographing, for aesthetic contemplation, and for understanding
the history of Ulsan.
Each of the diverse ways that whales are consumed in the SZWC
is an outcome of the production of nature, the process by which
humans apply labor and/or machine power to transform nature,
creating use values and exchange values(Smith 2008). Through the
production of nature, the SZWC creates many different whales as
consumable material entities deployed in the landscape. Consuming
whales by photographing, watching them from a boat, contemplating
them, or eating them, represent outcomes of different ways of
appropriating whales from nature to create use values and exchange
values. Hence, appropriating whales from nature does not always
involve killing the animal. Anthropologist Katja Neves(2010)
argues that whale watching tourism is not harmless to whales as
conservationists believe, because whale watching also transforms
whales into exchange values and therefore appropriates them for
human exploitation.
410·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
In a single landscape, the Jangsaengpo SCWZ combines different

modes of the production of nature, particularly whale conservation,
scientific discovery and whale meat. Each produces a different
“whale” for consumption, and the different whales coexist in a
relational manner. These are historically derived from the colonial
mode of appropriating whales from nature, introduced to Korea by
the Empire of Japan under its colonial regime. Hence, the colonial
forms of the appropriation of nature continue to exist in modified
form in Jangsaengpo, but ironically, these social practices are now
conceptualized as “Korean” and serve the role of distinguishing
Jangsaengpo as a place which is connected to, but distinct from
Japan. In other words, the place–making process in Jangsaengpo
indicates cultural ambivalence about Japan’s role in bringing whaling
to Korea.
In this article, I seek to expand the anthropological understanding
of place–making through the analysis of the Jangsaengpo Special
Zone for Whale Culture as a landscape which gives material
form to the social relations of whaling, implanted in Korea by the
Empire of Japan. By continuing the practice of whaling after the
reestablishment of Korean independence, the Koreans in Jangsaengpo
continued the colonial form of appropriating resources from the
natural environment. The celebration of whaling in Jangsaengpo and
its consumption as a representation of historical heritage results in
the continued existence of human/nature relations based upon the
appropriation of whales.
1) Theoretical Perspectives on Materiality, Landscape and Nature
Anthropologists have recently focused attention on natural

resources as a window onto social ontologies, which involves asking
“questions about resources’ specific characteristics and capacities,
the processes through which they come into being, and how such
processes of resource making can be studied ethnographically”
(Richardson and Weszkalnys 2014: 6). One approach to ethnographic
study of resources is the making of landscapes, which is the shaping

of territory to represent social relations in material form. Mitchell
(1996: 28) explains that, “on the ground, landscapes solidify social
relations, making them seem natural and enduring.” Social actors

attempt to gain power and hold it by shaping the landscape to
augment their control over labor and social organization. Hence,
landscape is “a material object mediated through all manner of
representations…naturalized through the very struggles engaged over
its form and its meaning…enacted in the process of struggle(Mitchell
1996: 31).
I have carried out fieldwork for the study of the Jangsaengpo

SZWC as a “material object” from 2009 through 2016, while
employing the classic triad of participant observation, ethnographic
interviews and analysis of texts such as news media reports, blogs,
and tourist brochures. As a participant observer, I was present at
diverse public spectacles staged in the SZWC, including a mock whale
hunt, the inauguration of a live dolphin exhibit, the Korea–Japan
Whale Meat Cooking Contest, and others. In observing these events,
and interviewing both planners and participants in these events, it
412·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
became clear that explicit and conscious efforts were made to attach
practices to a specific place, and to fix the meanings of these practices
as signifying a “shared” history and connection to the past.
Hence, it is important to signal that landscape is distinct from
ethnoscape and other “scapes” introduced into ethnographic parlance
by Appadurai(1990). While Appadurai’s ethnoscapes result from the
deterritorialization, or decoupling of social practices and cultural
identities from specific territories, landscape is produced through
the attachment of practices and meanings to a specific territory. The
self–conscious efforts of social groups to connect social practices
with specific places is important in modernity, as a reaction against
deterritorialization processes. Escobar points out that, “the tearing
apart of space from place,” which Giddens considers essential to
modernity, “would seem to push people to invest place and home
with personal agency to counter these tendencies”(Escobar 2001:148).
Relations between humans and nature are an important part
of place–making, and crucial to the production of place–
based identities. Ulsan is an industrial city known for factories
and smokestacks, but the designers of the Jangsaengpo SCWZ
argue that whales represent the key to improving the relationship
between humans and the natural world(파이낸셜뉴스, 2010.10.24.).
Some social scientists have argued that attitudes toward wild
animals are connected to beliefs and dispositions toward nature
more generally(Franklin 1999; Milton 2002; Čapek 2006; Lorimer 2007).
According to Escobar(2001: 155), nature is critical to place–making,
just as “place is central to issues of development, culture and the
environment.” Anthropology must concern itself with place–making
practices, because these are central to the production of “discourses of

difference…[and] the manifold ways of constructing culture, nature
and identities today”(Escobar 2001: 158).
The argument to be made here is that the creation of the Special
Zone for Whale Culture in Jangsaengpo in Ulsan is precisely a self–
conscious effort to create a landscape that ties whale consumption
to a specific space, designed for the reproduction of these social
practices. Within the SZWC, the practices of whale conservation
and eating whale meat are equally place–making devices and do not
contradict each other, as both sets of practices invoke the colonial
forms of exploiting whales which originated in Korea with the illegal
occupation by the Empire of Japan. In the engineered landscape
of the SZWC, this colonial form of consuming nature becomes a
signifier of place, social identity, and of resistance to global forces of
deterritorialization.
2) The Problem of Place and Identity in Ulsan, Jangsaengpo
On November 24, 2009, I observed the ceremony of inauguration

for the Dolphin Ecology Experience Hall, constructed next to the
Jangsaengpo Whale Museum. The new facility was designed to
entertain the public with the performance by four bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatis), imported from the city of Taiji in Japan. The
ceremony was attended by Japanese public officials representing Taiji

who ascended the stage to receive tokens of official gratitude awarded
by Ulsan Nam–gu Chief Executive Kim Doo–gyeom.
The influence of Japan is also evident in the celebration of the
414·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
Ulsan Whale Festival. Mr. Lee Man–woo, who was one of the
early organizers of the festival explained to me in an interview that,
“Whale culture is more than just eating whale meat. We needed to
include performances, such as in Taiji, where they include drumming
performances at the festival”(2011.09.09., Interview with Lee Man–woo,
President of Whale Culture Preservation Association).
The visible influence of Taiji in Ulsan illustrates a central question

for the analysis of whaling in Ulsan Jangsaengpo: to what extent is
the celebrated whale culture simply transplanted from Japan, and
to what extent is it local? To consider this question, however, it is
necessary to first consider some critiques of the concepts of “global”
and “local” which have clamored for attention in anthropology.
Gupta and Ferguson (1992) have urged anthropologists to
move beyond the concept of “culture,” to examine issues of space
and identity. They warn that anthropology has come to rely on
“disciplinary assumptions about the association of culturally unitary
groups with ‘their’ territories,” coming to “rely on an unproblematic
link between identity and place”(Gupta and Ferguson 1992: 7).
Anthropological analysis must not begin with the assumption that a
localized community exists. Instead, Gupta and Ferguson(1992: 10)
urge that we must examine the forces of transnational mobility, “the
culture–play of diaspora,” and the blurring of boundaries between
cultures.
From a similar perspective, Blok(2013) has criticized anthropologists
who defend whaling as a subsistence practice situated within a
traditional culture attached to certain communities. In his view,
the anthropologists have used “essentializing views of culture,
depicting whaling as pertaining to locally bounded, homogeneous

and authentically traditional cultural groups”(Blok 2013: 193). In
contrast, Blok focuses on the “globalizing” practices of the members
of the Japanese political elites who support whaling. Although the
political cadres who support whaling are a delimited group in Japan,
Blok(2013:187) views them as agents of a “global assemblage,” in the
view of “comparative globalities… from actor–network theory.”
From this perspective, “globality” is “situated locally” through the
social practices of agents, such that “there is not one global, but many
situated globalities”(Blok 2013:187).
The critiques of locality and culture reviewed here demonstrate
the importance of examining the social practices by which actors
situate their practices globally in relation to others. Nevertheless, it is
important that an emphasis on global connections should not obscure
the local practices of place–making. For this purpose, the concept of
“landscape” is utilized here to highlight the symbolic elements which
are mobilized through practices that materialize ideas and attempt to
bind them to a determinate territory.
In Ulsan Jangsaengpo in Korea, there is a self–conscious attempt
to produce a local identity, which is Korean, and unique to Ulsan
within Korea. In Ulsan it is possible to document the influence of
modern Japanese whaling politics; as is true of Japan, the goal in
Ulsan is to represent an identity which does not conform to “foreign”
anti–whaling norms. However, the effort in Ulsan Jangsaengpo
to produce a local “whale culture” is referenced on practices that
enshrine local social memory, with collective experiences attached to
specific locations in the landscape of Ulsan. These social memories are
416·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
illustrated by three materializations of whales in the Ulsan landscape:

the whale as object of natural history, the meat whale, and the whale
as the object of conservation.
2. Context of the Research
1) Contemporary Social Conflict over Whaling
The practice of eating whale meat in Ulsan is controversial, because

whaling has been illegal in the Republic of Korea since 1986(Song
2014). Korea banned whaling in response to the moratorium on
whaling approved by the International Whaling Commission(IWC).

The IWC has no enforcement powers, but calls upon member nations
to enforce the ban. However, since the ban went into effect, Korea
has been notorious for the highest rate of illegal whaling in the world
(연합뉴스, 2012.07.08.). According to some scientists, this illegal and
incidental consumption of whales may be driving the minke whale

stock(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in Korean–Japanese waters to
extinction(Baker et al. 2000).
The Korean government imposed the whaling ban without
consulting the residents of the wharf district of Jangsaengpo, whose
livelihoods hung in the balance. In 1995, the restaurant owners of
Jangsaengpo organized the first annual whale festival, in order to
preserve their culture and the memory of whaling. Residents’ protests
against the ban on whaling culminated in 2012, when they pushed
for Korea to request permission from the IWC to begin a program of
scientific whaling.
In the district seat of Ulsan Nam–gu, frustration is openly
expressed that the return to whaling is blocked by the IWC and the
international environmentalist movement. In a conversation with the
author, one of the district officials said, “It’s unbelievable that we are
not allowed to carry out whaling, just because foreigners think that
whales are cute and can’t be harmed”(Interview 2009.10.24.). From
his perspective, pigs are cute too, but that does not stop people from
eating pork. Nevertheless, this account ignores a crucial difference,
as pigs are domestic farm animals but whales are wild animals,
and are viewed by environmentalists as essential for biodiversity
and preserving the environment(Einarsson 2005). Ulsan supporters of
whaling, like their Japanese counterparts, oppose this conception of
whales.
Hence, an important local belief regarding whales is that they are
a resource to be consumed for human benefit, based upon a broader
disposition toward natural resources as consumable entities to be
utilized for economic development. This belief represents the logic of
the production of nature during the Japanese imperial period, when
the whaling industry was developed.
2) Historical Context
The start of modern whaling in Asia began in 1890, when Russian

ships began taking whales on the Korean coastline(Kato and Kasuya
2002). However, the Russian operation needed a stable location
for processing the whales they caught(Neff and Jeon 2012). The
418·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
construction of the flensing(whale meat processing) facility, 고래해체장

[goraehaechejang] at Jangsaengpo in 1899, along with dormitories
for workers marks the beginning of this community.
After the Russo–Japanese War began in 1904, the Japanese seized
the Russian whaling ships(Watanabe 2009). When the Russians lapsed
in paying taxes to the Joseon government, the Japanese firm of
Toyo Fisheries was given the whaling concession in 1905, and took
possession of the Jangsaengpo land and infrastructure. Subsequently
many other whaling companies sprang up, inspired by the success of
Toyo.
Watanabe(2009) emphasizes that Japanese industrial whaling
techniques were first developed in Korean coastal waters, to extract
“untapped” natural resources from the colony. Under the Japanese
empire, the whaling companies imported Norwegian whaling
technology and employed Norwegian harpoon gunners. The Japanese
also developed a new technology, the mobile flensing ship for at–
sea processing, but on–shore processing continued as well. Successful
industrial whaling techniques were later transplanted from Korea
to the Japanese home islands. From 1935 onward, factory ships
increased in size, and operated as mother ships for small catcher
ships. The emphasis shifted away from whale meat and focused
instead on whale oil, utilized to prepare for the imperial war effort
(Watanabe 2009: 45).
Hence, from the Japanese colonization of Korea came the idea

of the ocean as a source of limitless resources to be extracted
through the application of new technologies. Simultaneous with the
implantation of a colonial rationale of resource exploitation, there
were also the beginnings of a colonial regime of conservation or

species protection. The gray whale(Eschrichtius robustus) became the
target of conservation. In the early 20th century, the gray whale used
to migrate from its Arctic feeding grounds following the coastline
on a long–distance journey to the tropics, passing along the eastern
coast of the Korean peninsula. It was extensively hunted by the
Japanese whalers, to the point of commercial depletion. According
to Watanabe(2009), it was already known by the Japanese imperial
authorities that whaling was the cause of the gray whale’s depletion,
and this motivated the declaration of the gray whale as a natural
monument.
On December 28, 1919, the government of the Empire of Japan
passed the Law for the Conservation of Historical Sites, Scenic Places
and Natural Monuments with the goal of preserving natural sites for
future generations, and to prevent the extinction of natural species.
A historic site, a scenic place, a natural monument, or a species could
be declared a natural monument, as well as habitats or spaces which
might include breeding grounds or migratory sites(Watanabe 2009: 88).
In 1942, the Japanese Governor General of Joseon designated
the gray whale migration sites on the coasts of Gangwon–
do, Gyeongsangnam–do and Gyeongsangbuk–do as natural
monuments. However, by this time, the gray whale had become
so rare that it no longer could constitute an exploitable resource.
Watanabe argues that a protected status was given to this species
only because it no longer would entail economic costs to do so.
Hence, “it was only when the gray whale was facing extinction and
was no longer a viable resource that protection measures were finally
420·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
implemented”(Watanabe 2009: 89). Protection regimes were allowed,

inasmuch as they did not threaten the imperial exploitation of natural
habitats and resources.
Likewise, after being hunted to the edge of extinction, the gray
whale has become an icon inscribed in the landscape of Jangsaengpo
by the designers of the SZWC. Furthermore, it is now a symbolic
focus of conservation and the representative of Korea’s effort to allow
whales to return to its depleted seas. The visibility of the gray whale
within the SZWC functions to deflect the visitor’s attention away
from Korean protesters’ arguments against lenient policies which
allow minke whales to be sold as meat in semi–clandestine markets.
3. Materialities of Whales in Ulsan Jangsaengpo
1) Whale as Object of Natural History
As explained in the introduction, in the contemporary Jangsaengpo

SZWC, the whale is transformed into a material product through
social practices that render it consumable in many different forms.
Three forms will be explored here: the whale as an object of
natural history, the whale as meat, and the whale as an object of
conservation. These different products seem to be created through
divergent social processes, but in fact they collude in producing a
local identity.
First, I consider the whale as an object of natural history. The
whaling outpost of Jangsaengpo is located on an ocean inlet which
was an important sheltering area for the western Pacific stock of the
gray whale, during its yearly migration. However, after the Japanese
whalers brought them to the brink of extinction, the remnant of gray
whales changed their migration route and no longer pass near the
coast of South Korea.
In the Jangsaengpo Whale Museum, there is an exhibit which
spotlights the gray whale’s ecology and migration pattern, which
includes the display of an original monograph authored in 1914 by
Roy Chapman Andrews, titled Monograph of the Pacific Cetacea
I. The California Gray Whale (Rhachivanectes glaucus Cope). An
American researcher who visited Korea in January of 1912, Andrews
sailed from Ulsan aboard the Japanese whaling vessels to observe
how they captured the whales, and he collected skeletons from two
specimens which he shipped to the American Museum of Natural
History(연합뉴스, 2013.02.17.).
For the people of Ulsan, there are two important facts about
Andrews’ visit. First, that in his monograph, Andrews gave the name
“Korean gray whale” to the Asian population. Hence, Andrews’
writings are locally understood as having tied this species to the
territory and nation of Korea in this act of naming. A second
significant aspect of Andrews is that he is rumored to have been the
inspiration for George Lucas’ movie character, Indiana Jones. The
fact that a researcher from a prestigious North American institution
visited Ulsan to study whales seems to put Ulsan “on the map,”
allowing Ulsan to make a valuable contribution to natural history.
The idea that the researcher was “the real–life Indiana Jones”
increases its significance by connecting Ulsan to a global mass media
422·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
image.
These significant aspects of Andrews’ association with Ulsan
are visible in the SZWC, where three statues are displayed on the
Jangsaengpo wharf, near the entrance of the Dolphin Ecology
Experience Hall. The first statue installed is a bust of Andrews
mounted on an engraved stele, which was dedicated in a public
ceremony on May 25, 2011 by Ulsan Nam–gu Chief Executive Kim
Doo–gyeum and a contingent of local political figures[Figure 1]; the
bust was dedicated in conjunction with an academic symposium held
in honor of the 100th anniversary of Andrews’ visit to Ulsan. When
I observed and recorded the dedication of the bust and stele in my
field notes, I noted that the material environment of the SZWC had
been marked. With the placement of the bust, Andrews’ face looks
toward the visitors who enter the Dolphin Ecology Experience Hall,
and from the visitor’s standpoint the bust is in front of the waters of
the Jangsaengpo Inlet that leads to the East Sea of Korea. Hence, the
waters of Jangsaengpo are marked by the visage of Andrews in the
foreground, and the ship traffic entering and exiting the port is visible
in the background. The placement of the bust of Andrews marks the
maritime movements in and out of Jangsaengpo in the present, but
also symbolically in the past and in the future.
In proximity to the bust and stele, a second statue one meter away
depicts Andrews as a life–sized figure standing upright, wearing a
Stetson–style hat and facing a globe mounted on a pedestal[Figure
2]. The globe seems to signify Andrews’ global travels, and the
global nature of scientific investigation. Finally, a third life–sized
figure depicts Andrews as Indiana Jones, wearing a similar hat, and
[Figure 1] Nam–gu Chief Executive Kim Doo–gyeom and other leaders

unveil the bust and stele of Roy Chapman Andrews. Photo by author.
bearing a machete in one hand and a rope in another; the points of

the compass are engraved elaborately on the flagstones under his feet,
emphasizing his adventurous explorations across the world.
By utilizing Andrews(and Indiana Jones) as the icon of Westerners’
scientific investigation of whales in Ulsan, the designers of Ulsan’s
SZWC are placing Ulsan into an imaginary of “exotic places” visited
by scientific adventurers all over the globe. This configures Ulsan
as one of the planet’s exotic and exciting places to be discovered,
because it is the home of the elusive gray whale. It is also an indicator
of “the global in the local,” or the deployment of global elements
in the creation of a local identity. Connecting the city to what is
perceived as a “cosmopolitan” and “global” narrative of scientific
exploration of the Earth imparts the idea that Ulsan is important in
the larger scheme of things.
The representation of Andrews in the Jangsaengpo SZWC makes
the gray whale into an object of worldwide scientific significance.
424·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
[Figure 2] Two additional

statues of Andrews featuring
the explorer’s paraphernalia
were erected adjacent to the
bust that was installed in 2011.
Photo by author.
However, in contrast to Japanese case in which whales became

objects of “technoscience” which justifies lethal research based on
whaling(Blok 2013), the Ulsan effort to shape the gray whale into
an object of scientific classification does not make it into an object
of technoscience. Instead, the gray whale of Ulsan is an object of
romantic “adventure science,” of the type popularized by National
Geographic, and referred to as “natural history.” This does not make
the whale into an object to be killed or utilized as a resource, but as
an object of curiosity, discovery and excitement.
2) Whale as Meat
Many people in Jangsaengpo consider that eating whale meat is the

most important social practice in defining their identity. However, it
is important to ask, what binds this social practice to this particular

place? That is, why does eating this particular food continue to
signify a local allegiance? For many years, whale meat has been
popular in Busan and in Pohang as well. However, anthropologist Ii
Sunae(2013) reports that in the days before refrigerated trucks existed,
the people boasted that only Jangsaengpo could sell truly fresh–
tasting whale meat, since the meat transported to other cities was
less than fresh. The reason was that only Jangsaengpo had a flensing
facility, and whales caught in any part of Korea’s ocean territory were
necessarily brought to Jangsaengpo to be butchered.
The flensing facility is of central importance to the landscape of
Jangsaengpo, because it was the economic center of the community
when whaling began. The origins of Jangsaengpo go back to 1901,
when the Russian Pacific Whale Fishing Company purchased the
concession from the Joseon government to build the first flensing
facility at the site. The facility passed to Japan after the Russo–
Japanese War, and after Korea regained independence, eventually a
new flensing facility was constructed in 1961. After 1986 when the
whaling moratorium came into effect, the flensing facility fell into
disrepair. However, in 2005, a new flensing facility was planned for
construction in 2005 adjacent to the Jangsaengpo Whale Museum,
but the plan was postponed due to negative international publicity.
Because the whale meat processing facility has such symbolic
value, it is not surprising that Ulsan Nam–gu has attempted
several times to rebuild it. In 2003, Lee Che–Ik the Ulsan Nam–
gu District Executive wrote, “I have a scheme to revive Jang–seng–
po(which once thrived by whaling) as a new town through such efforts
426·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
as construction of a whale museum, [and the] restoration of the

whale flensing station…”(Lee 2003). However, in 2005, the plan
received negative publicity when the international environmentalist
organization, Greenpeace, sent demonstrators to occupy the proposed
site for construction of the new whale meat processing facility.
After camping out in Jangsaengpo for 77 days, the anti–whaling
demonstrators finally won the concession that the city would not
rebuild the facility(한겨레, 2005.06.14.). Nevertheless, the plan to
rebuild the facility was reactivated in 2012, along with plans for
Ulsan Nam–gu to purchase and operate 3 whaling ships (경상일보,
2012.07.09.). However, the plan was cancelled by the administration
of president Lee Myung–bak(경향신문, 2012.07.11.).

Exhibits in the Ulsan Whale Museum emphasize that the flensing
facility was the center of communal life in the days of whaling.
Photographs on display in the museum show that the whale meat
processing facility was a location where people of the village would
assemble, running there when they heard the news that a whale had
been captured. It was an exciting event, but also a chance to acquire
some whale meat. Roy Chapman Andrews(1916), writing of his visit
to Ulsan in 1912, noted that children walked through the flensing
station with baskets, collecting scraps of meat that had fallen by the
wayside. Anthropologist Ii Sunae(2013: 279) explains:
Even those villagers who had nothing to do with whaling could obtain
some whale meat, because whaling companies gave some to its employees,
who always shared it with their neighbors and relatives in the village.
Thus, when a whale was hunted, villagers were able to eat whale meat
without buying it.
Although the central purpose of the whale meat processing facility

was to prepare whale products for commercial markets, it was
also the location where whale meat entered distribution into non–
commercial circulation, the routes of reciprocal social exchange
within the village, as well as with kindred residing outside. Since
it was not merely a commercial institution but also a location of
communal redistribution, the symbolic significance of the whale meat
processing facility cannot be overestimated.
According to Smith(2008: 35), in the production of nature human
labor provides “the connecting link between the instrument of labor
and the object of labor.” From this perspective, Jangsaengpo’s
attempt to recreate the central flensing facility can be interpreted as
an attempt to recreate a certain object (whale meat) and a certain set
of social relations by recreating—or displaying—the instruments of
labor. In the heyday of whaling in Jangsaengpo, the whale was an
object of labor linked by hunting and flensing tools to the communal
social organization of the village. However, these tools have been
reproduced only representationally, in the Jangsaengpo Whale
Museum and in the Jangsaengpo Old Village. In this manner, the
social organization of whaling in its heyday is reproduced as a social
memory in the material landscape of the SZWC.
The Jangsaengpo residents consider the flensing facility as the
symbolic center of the village’s history, so it is not surprising that
there have been many attempts to represent the facility in material
form. For example, the Jangsaengpo Whale Museum has placed
428·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
[Figure 3] The Jangsaengpo Whale Museum’s display of vats for whale fat,
with mannequins representing the workers in the flensing facility. Photo by
author.
emphasis on the display of tools and equipment which were taken

from the whale meat processing facility. Equipment including the
scales, hoists, winches and whale fat rendering vats are displayed,
along with mannequins representing the workers engaged in the tasks
of processing whales [Figure 3].
In 2015 Ulsan Nam–gu opened a new attraction, the “Old Village
of Jangsaengpo,” 장생포 옛마을[Jangsaengpo yenmaeul], which
contains a replica of the whale meat processing facility, with realistic
sculptures of workers slicing up whale carcasses [Figure 4]. This
model village replicates Jangsaengpo as it existed in the 1960s/1970s,
with 23 structures including houses, a school, a barber shop, a post
office, general stores and restaurants(연합뉴스, 2015.05.05). The design
of the replica village overall indicates how important the whale meat
processing facility was to the daily life of the village [Figure 5].
The material representation of the flensing facility is the result

of many years of struggle between the environmentalists and the
whalers. The repeated attempts to rebuild an operational whale
meat processing facility have failed, but the replicas of the facility
in the museum and in the Jangsaengpo Old Village testify to the
local meaning of whale meat production, which symbolized local
relationships of trust, reciprocity and mutual aid. The physical,
material representation of the uniqueness of this place imparts
meaning to the social practices carried out here. Eating whale meat in
the original whaling town has a meaning different than that of eating
it in Seoul, or in a private residence elsewhere in Ulsan. Hence, the
Jangsaengpo Old Village is not merely a typical “folk village” designed
[Figure 4] The “Old Village of Jangsaengpo” replica of the flensing facility

features statues of workers processing a whale carcass. Photo by author.
430·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
[Figure 5] The “Old Village of Jangsaengpo” display of flensing knives and

a vat used historically. Photo by author.
for entertainment, as it is a representation of the values of the people

who have struggled to rebuild the flensing station.
3) Whale as Object of Conservation
The gray whale is an elusive whale which has become a sort of

disappearing “ghost” in Korean history. It is also iconic of Korea’
s relationship with whales. In 1962, the gray whale migration route
was designated as a natural monument #126 천연기념물 제126호
[cheonyeon ginyeommul je baegisibyuk ho] in Korea. In 1974,
a scientific paper was published announcing that the Korean gray
whale was probably extinct(Bowen 1974), but a later paper argued
that the whale was not extinct, but approaching extinction(Brownell
and Chun 1977). One commentator has argued, “There is no meaning
[of the designation as natural monument], if there is no gray whale

in the sea. We must devote all sincerity to the reproduction and
preservation of Korean ghost whales”(울산신문, 2011.09.14.). This
call for the conservation of the gray whale seems quixotic at best,
given that Japan and Korea together have all but liquidated the Asian
population of gray whales.
Hence, from the 1970s onward it was believed that the gray whales
were hanging onto survival in reduced numbers(Brownell and Chun
1977). In 1981, a popular magazine offered a reward of 1 million
won to any person who could photograph the gray whale in Korean
waters. In 2005, the Cetacean Research Institute of the National
Fisheries Research and Development Institute[CRI–NFRDI] offered
a 5 million won reward for any person who could sight a gray
whale in Korean waters, if they submitted a photograph as evidence.
Scientists working in the CRI, which is also located in Jangsaengpo,
are continuing the search. One scientist remarked, “I would trade
everything for the joy of seeing a Korean gray whale crossing our sea
again”(연합뉴스, 2008.01.13.).
There is a meaning in the calls to preserve a whale stock that
has been hunted to the verge of extinction. The Korean gray whale
represents a “lost” or vanishing member of the Korean natural
community, and the opportunity which has been wasted to restore
the relationship between humans and nature. For this reason, Koreans
are striving to find, or rediscover this “lost” whale, while calling for
preservation of its remaining population and the official recognition
of its [former] habitat. Seemingly, to call for the conservation of
432·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
the gray whale is to contradict the importance of whaling, which

most Ulsan residents consider crucial in their history of economic
development.
The Korean gray whale occupies a major part of the iconography
of Jangsaengpo. According to Ulsan city officials, “the desire for the
return of the gray whale [is represented] by installing a life–size
(13.5m long) gray whale model at the whale museum (Jangsaengpo)
upon the opening of the International Whaling Commission”(시사저널,

2005.03.17.). In the Jangsaengpo Whale Museum, the gray whale is
the only whale species which is described in terms of its life cycle and
biological characteristics. The work of Roy Chapman Andrews has
also been creatively reinterpreted in order to markedly “Koreanize”
the gray whale, to assert that it does indeed belong to Korea.
When Andrews carried out his investigations into the gray whale
in Ulsan in 1912, he sought to discover what the gray whale eats,
by examining the contents of stomachs after the whales were
caught. He found only some bits of seaweed and green gelatinous
liquid, so he concluded that the whales do not eat food during their
migration(Andrews 1916: 207). However, recently, Koreans took
Andrews’ observations as indicators that gray whales eat kelp, 미역
[miyeok]. This has given rise to a story that the female gray whale
eats kelp to recover strength after she gives birth, just as the Korean
woman eats kelp soup after childbirth. This story was told by marine
biologist Kim Zang Geun, who was the Director of the CRI(한겨레,
2010.09.17.). It can be understood as an attempt to Koreanize the
gray whale, or to emphasize its similarity to Koreans (rather than to

Japanese or other nationalities). The narrative can also be understood
as an effort to humanize the whale, so that people will stop hunting

a whale that has special significance for Korean history. The same
scientist, Kim Zang Geun, has explicitly stated that the gray whale
must be protected from illegal hunting that is now occurring in
Korea(연합뉴스, 2008.01.13.).
Finally, although the gray whale is now absent from Korean
waters, the whale’s former territories in the ocean are now identified
with the city of Ulsan. In 2008, the Cultural Heritage Administration
of Korea accepted the request by the City of Ulsan to change of
name of Natural Monument No. 126. Originally, in 1962, the
migration route of the gray whale had been named “Ulsan Gukkyong
Breathing Sea Surface,” 울산 극경 회유해면[ulsan geukgyeong
hoeyuhaemyeon]. However, in 2008 the name was changed to
“Ulsan Gray Whale Breathing Sea Surface,” 울산 귀신고래 회유해면
[ulsan gwisingorae hoeyuhaemyeon](SBS 뉴스. 2008.09.25.). The
purpose is to remove the old Japanese word, 극경[geukgyeong],
and use the current Korean word, 귀신고래[gwisingorae](조선일보,
2008.06.27.). This change of name reasserts the association of this
whale with Korea, and not with Japan, and the Cultural Heritage
Administration also granted the City of Ulsan the official stewardship
of the monument.
Hence, the gray whale is the subject of discourses which assert its
relationship to a place and to a territory. These discourses may assert
the whale’s Koreaness, to appeal for protecting the whale, or they
may assert territoriality by designating a special, monumental status
to the coastal areas of the whale’s former migration [Figure 6]. But
how do these calls to protect the whale coexist with the 25 whale
434·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
meat restaurants located a few meters away from Korea’s CRI?

In fact, the discourse calling for Koreans to save the gray whale
allows people of Ulsan to claim they care about whale conservation,
even while they eat the meat from other species, such as the minke
whale. The comments by Kim Zang Geun and other CRI scientists
clearly indicate the need for a future in which conservation becomes
central, in order to make up for the past in which gray whales were
savagely exploited. However, it is a selective form of conservation, in
which each species or stock would be protected on a case–by–case
basis. The idea is that instead of protecting marine mammals overall,
we must selectively exploit some species while preserving others.
This selective conservation was also behind the Japanese Empire’s
effort to protect the gray whale by designating a natural monument,
after it had already become depleted to the point that it could no
longer serve as a resource; the Republic of Korea has repeated this
designation of the natural monument, while continuing to permit an
illegal hunt for whales. Hence, the Japanese colonial understanding of
nature continues to influence the way that Ulsan people look at and
act upon the natural world. A famous whaling expert in Ulsan, Byun
Chang–myoung, explained:
Whaling is a way of using nature that has descended from thousands of

years…because diversity in marine species is crucial to catch whales, and
even humans, to catch whales at the peak of the food chain…If you do
not catch a certain amount of whale resources, other fish species will be
depleted severely(울산신문, 2011.04.26.).
[Figure 6] The monument overlooking Jangsaengpo Inlet which announces

the designation of the migration route of the gray whale. Photo by author.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
The invention of “whale culture” in Ulsan Jangsaengpo illustrates

the creation of a landscape as a material and discursive environment
for the reproduction of social practices which are attached to a
specific, delimited territory. While Gupta and Ferguson(1992)
have criticized the assumption that cultural traditions connect
automatically to a delimited territory, the concept of landscape avoids
this assumption by highlighting the efforts of social actors to identify
a place with specific modes of appropriating nature to produce
materialized representations of social relations. Through these
materializations, the social practices can be construed as traditional,
436·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
irrespective of their actual novelty or longevity.

In the Jangsaengpo SZWC, place–making practices materialize
various kinds of “whales,” bringing together contrasting materialities
in a balance. Each material whale connects in a different way to the
identity of the visitor to the SZWC. Landscape gives material form
to the social relations of whaling and naturalizes the appropriation of
nature, with whaling as a specific form which originated in colonial
social and political relations. The colonial meanings of whales
inscribed in the landscape continue to influence the market for whale
meat as a commodity today.
In this article, I have examined how three different materializations
of whales are produced in the landscape of Jangsaengpo in the city
of Ulsan. In the case of the whale as object of natural history, Ulsan
Jangsaengpo becomes a place imagined as connected to a global
apparatus of scientific exploration and discovery. The multiple
representations of Roy Chapman Andrews and Indiana Jones
contribute to portray Ulsan as one of many exotic peripheries united
by the universal romance of scientific exploration. The celebration
in 2011 of the centennial of Andrews’ visit to Ulsan has placed
Ulsan within a colonialist imaginary of exotic peripheries, while
also mapping Ulsan in relation to a global scientific apparatus. It
is a materialization of global identifications, with the use of scalar
homogeneity that Blok(2013) referred to as “globality.”
The whale of the flensing facility is destined to be meat— a
commodity, but much more than a commodity, because Jangsaengpo
had the only whale meat processing facility in Korea, and it
functioned as a symbol of the reciprocity between the whalers and
other members of the town community. Both the Jangsaengpo Whale

Museum and the Jangsaengpo Old Village materialize the image of
the flensing facility as it existed in the past, claiming to “preserve”
the social memory of the past by reinventing it in a new form—
as a display. The social organization of the village which existed
in the 1960s and 70s has disappeared, and is no longer relevant
in the modern production of whale meat in Korea. Nevertheless,
the material and visual portrayals of the flensing facility convey the
impression that whale meat is still connected to the ancestral forms
of social organization. This material representation in the landscape
is likely to influence visitors to perceive that whale meat is a local
product in Ulsan, when in fact, it may be imported from Japan as
shown through forensic investigations(Baker et al. 2010). Hence, the
social memory that is materialized in the display of whaling tools
and the recreation of the ancestral flensing facility serves to localize
modern whale meat by attaching it to the image of social relations
that existed in the past. It is a materialization of local identifications.
Finally, the whale as object of conservation is a materialization
based on the practice of extending protection to a species and
attempting to reestablish it in the original habitat. A strong
identification between the gray whale and the Korean nation has
been proposed. This materialization is primarily based on national,
or nationalistic identifications. However, the gray whale as the object
of conservation represents a “ghost,” a representative of the idyllic
past, and of an elusive future in which whales can be protected. In
this sense, it represents a feeling of regret, or ambivalence toward the
past, characterized by industrial consumption of natural resources and
438·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
habitats, which occurred first under Japanese imperial domination,

and later in the industrialization phase that followed the restoration
of Korean independence. This ambivalence suggests a possible future
in which Ulsan citizens may come to value the conservation and
protection of whales instead of continued whaling. Such a radical
change in social practices would merely require a change in the
balance of relations between the ontologically distinct whales, as Blok
(2013) suggests may also occur in Japan.
In the anthropological study of material resources, instead of

focusing on the individual resource substances, the resources are
shown to be situated in a relational world (Richardson and Weszkalnys
2014). Within the SZWC of Jangsaengpo , this relational world is
produced in a landscape that mobilizes multiple “whales” in the

service of a manufactured identity. Here, we find the unique meat
whale butchered in the flensing facility, signifying local reciprocity
and plenitude; we find the gray whale of natural history, which
adds adventure and excitement, from the globalized world of
scientific exploration; and finally, we find the elusive “ghost whale”
of conservation, pointing toward a future in which we will save the
valuable species, while hunting other, less valuable species. Each of
these whales represents a separate relational world, all of which are
tied to a specific place—Jangsaengpo in Ulsan. Hence, a single piece
of whale meat, consumed on the wharf in Jangsaengpo is touched by
all three relational worlds. The Special Zone for Whale Culture is not
merely a “theme park” which advertises whale meat as a commodity.
Rather, it is a landscape of sustained struggle, which gives meanings
to a commodity, and ties this commodity to a specific place.
■ 참고문헌
Andrews, Roy Chapman, 1914, Monograph of the Pacific Cetacea I. The

California Gray whale (Rhachivanectes glaucus Cope), New York:
American Museum of Natural History.
________ 1916, Whale Hunting with Gun and Camera: A Naturalist's
Account of the Modern Shore–whaling Industry, of Whales and
Their Habits, and of Hunting Experiences in Various Parts of the
World, New York: D. Appleton and Company.
Appadurai, Arjun, 1990, “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural
Economy,” Theory, Culture & Society 7(2): 295–310.
Baker, C. Scott, Gina M. Lento, Frank Cipriano, and Stephen R. Palumbi,
2000, “Predicted Decline of Protected Whales Based on Molecular
Genetic Monitoring of Japanese and Korean Markets,” Proceedings
of the Royal Society B 267(1449): 1191–1199.
Baker, C. Scott, Debbie Steel, Yeyong Choi, Hang Lee, Kyung Seok Kim,
Sung Kyoung Choi, Ma, Yong–Un., Charles Hambleton, Louie
Psihoyos, Robert L. Brownell, and Naoko Funahashi, 2010, “Genetic
Evidence of Illegal Ttrade in Protected Whales Links Japan with the
US and South Korea,” Biology Letters, Published online, April 14.
Blok, Anders, 2013, “Comparative Globalities: Actor–network Theory and
the Topologies of Japanese ‘Research’ Whales,” East Asian Science,
Technology and Society 7(2): 185–204.
Bowen, Steven L., 1974, “Probable Extinction of the Korean Stock of Gray
Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)”, Journal of Mammalogy 55(1):
208–209.
Brownell, Robert L. and Chan–il Chun, 1977, “Probable Existence of the
Korean Stock of Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus),” Journal of
Mammalogy 58(2): 237–239.
Čapek, Stella M., 2006, “Surface Tension: Boundary Negotiations Around
440·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
Self, Society, and Nature in a Community Debate over Wildlife,”

Symbolic Interaction 29(2): 157–181.
Einarsson, Niels, 2005, “All Animals Are Equal But Some Are Cetaceans:
Conservation and Culture Conflict,” in Kay Milton (ed.),
Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, London:
Routledge, pp.71–82.
Escobar, Arturo, 2001, “Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and
Subaltern Strategies of Localization,” Political Geography 20(2):
139–174.
Franklin, Adrian, 1999, Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of
Human–Animal Relations in Modernity, London: Sage.
Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson, 1992, “Beyond ‘Culture’: Space, Identity,
and the Politics of Difference,” Cultural Anthropology 7(1): 6–23.
Ii, Sunae, 2013, “Whale Food Culture in Korea: A Case Study in Ulsan
Jangsaengpo,” Senri Ethnological Studies 84: 267–284.
Kato, H. and Kasuya, T. 2002. “Some Analyses on the Modern Whaling
Catch History of the Western North Pacific Stock of Gray Whales
(Eschrichtius robustus), with Special Reference to the Ulsan Whaling
Ground,” Journal of Cetacean Research Management 4(3): 277–
282.
Lee, Che–ik, 2003, “Ulsan and Whales,” ISANA 28 http://www.whaling.
jp/english/isana/no28_02.html (2016.08.12. 접속)
Lorimer, Jamie, 2007, “Nonhuman charisma,” Environment and Planning
D 25(5): 911–932.
Milton, Kay, 2002, Loving Nature: Towards an Ecology of Emotion,
New York: Routledge.
Mitchell, Don, 1996, The Lie of the Land: Migrant Workers and the
California Landscape, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Neff, Robert D. and Dong–Hun Jeon, 2012, “Russian Whaling in Joseon
Korea,” Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society Korea Branch
87: 97–115.
Neves, Katja, 2010, “Cashing in on Cetourism: A Critical Ecological
Engagement with Dominant E–NGO Discourses on Whaling,
Cetacean Conservation, and Whale Watching,” Antipode 42(3):
719–741.
Richardson, Tanya, and Gisa Weszkalnys, 2014, “Introduction: Resource
Materialities,” Anthropological Quarterly 87(1): 5–30.
Smith, Neil, 2008, Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the
Production of Space, Third edition, Athens: University of Georgia
Press.
Song, Kyung–Jun, 2014, “Status of Marine Mammals in Korea,” Ocean
and Coastal Management 91: 1–4.
Watanabe, Hiroyuki, 2009, Japan’s Whaling: The Politics of Culture in
Historical Perspective, Hugh Clarke (translator), Melbourne: Trans
Pacific Press.
<Newspaper articles>
『경상일보』, “고래를 울산의 대표브랜드로 만들자,”(허광무), 2009.08.18일자,
http://www.ksilbo.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=262542
(2017.07.01. 접속)
___________ “내년말 포경재개 예상…울산 준비 착착,” 2012.07.09. 일자,
http://www.ksilbo.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=374245
(2016.08.12. 접속)
『경향신문』, “정부, 국내외 반대여론에 ‘고래잡이 포기’,” (오창민),
2012.07.11. 일자, http://www.ksilbo.co.kr/news/articleView.
html?idxno=374245 (2016.08.12. 접속)
『부산일보』, “[부·울·경 기초단체장 이것만은 ‘[꼭’] “고래문화마을로 관
광도시 건설,”(강태봉), 2010.06.25일자, http://news20.busan.
com/controller/newsController.jsp?newsId=20100625000087
(2015.02.17. 접속)
442·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
『서울신문』, “포경에서 관경으로… 진화하는 고래산업,” (박정훈), 2013.08.17

일자, http://seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20130817017002
(2015.05.1. 접속)
『시사저널』, “고래 잡자”…“당신들 미쳤나,” (김은남), 2005.03.17. 일자, http://
www.sisapress.com/journal/articlePrint/101112 (2013.01.14. 접속)
『연합뉴스 』 “S. Korea Accounted for 21 of 23 IWC Whaling Cases in 2011:
Report,” 2012.07.08. 일자, http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news
/2012/07/08/21/0200000000AEN20120708001700315F.HTML
(2012.11.03. 접속)
__________ “‘고래 해체장도 있어요’…울산 포경마을 복원,” 2015.05.15 일자,
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/ bulletin/2015/05/15/020000000
0AKR20150515151200057.HTML (2015.08.01. 접속)
__________ “101년 전 ‘한국계 귀신고래 골격’ 미국에 있다,” (반종빈), 2013.
02.17. 일자, http://www. yonhapnews.co.kr/local/2013/02/15/08
12000000AKR20130215185000057.HTML(2016.04.12. 접속)
__________ “Lone Researchers Hope for Return of Elusive Korean Gray
Whales,” (Kim Sam), 2008.01.13. 일자, http://english.yonhapnews.
co.kr/Features/2008/01/13/34/0801000000AEN2008011200180
0315F.HTML (2017.01.01. 접속)
『오마이뉴스』, “고래 고기 먹는 고래 축제.. 이젠 바뀌어야,” (최수상), 2017.05.
26. 일자, http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/View/at_
pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0002329103 (2013.01.14. 접속)
『울산신문』, “고래 소식지 ‘고래사냥’ 100호,” (김종경), 2011.04.26. 일자, http://
www.ulsanpress.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=105800
(2015.06.01. 접속)
__________ “울산과 고래 ④ 한국계 귀신고래,” (김종경), 2011.09.14. 일자,
http://www.ulsanpress.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=114096
(2015.06.15. 접속)
__________ “울산 고래문화마을엔 ‘마을’이 없다,” (용석록), 2014.10.21일자,
http://www.usjournal.kr/News/63833 (2015.8.1. 접속)
『조선일보』, “‘울산 극경회유해면’을 아시나요?” (윤석), 2008.06.27. 일자,

http://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/06/26/
2008062601614.html (2013.02.25. 접속)
『중앙데일리』, “Controversy Over a Giant of the Sea,” (Limb Jae–un),
2005.06.23. 일자, http://mengnews.joins.com/view.aspx?aId=
2585173 (2015.05.21. 접속)
『코리아타임즈』, “Whale Meat Restaurants Top 100 in Ulsan,” (Kang Shin–
who), 2010.07.11. 일자, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/
news/nation/2010/07/113_69213.html (2017.01.01. 접속)
『파이낸셜뉴스』, “[전국 초대석] (36) 김두겸 울산 남구청장,” 2010.10.24
일자, http://www.fnnews.com/news/201010241835235703
(2015.02.27. 접속)
『한겨레』, “울산시–그린피스 고래 위생처리장 건립 포기 싸고 신경전,” (김광수),
2005.06.14. 일자, http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/PRINT/42227.
html (2016.05.22. 접속)
__________ “귀신도 모르는 귀신고래 귀신처럼 나타날까,” (조홍섭), 2010.09.17.
일자, http://ecotopia.hani.co.kr/1591 (2017.03.15. 접속)
『SBS뉴스』, “‘귀신고래 회유해면’으로 불러주세요,” 2008.09.25. 일자,
h t t p :// n e w s . s b s . c o . k r / n e w s / e n d P a g e . d o ?n e w s _i d =
N1000476413&plink=OLDURL (2016.05.22. 접속)
　　
투고일자 : 2017.05.29 심사일자 : 2017.06.22 게재확정일자 : 2017.06.23

444·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
Abstract
Key words : Place–making, Materialities, Landscape, Ulsan, Whaling, Whale

meat
Place–making, Landscape and Materialities:

Whales and Social Practices in Ulsan, Korea
Bradley Tatar*
In the southeastern coastal city of Ulsan in Korea, people continue to defy

the global taboo on eating whale meat, which they believe is an important
social practice for local identity. The Nam–gu District in the City of Ulsan
has created the Special Zone for Whale Culture as a spatial territory in which
many divergent social practices related to whales are carried out. In this
tourist zone, how are the elements of Ulsan whale culture invented, and how
are they attached to a specific place? Using the concept of landscape, I argue
that place–making practices are carried out to produce different kinds of
whales as material realities. I analyze three of the many kinds of whales that
are produced: the natural history whale, the whale as meat, and the whale as
object of conservation. I conclude by arguing that these materialized whales
are not separate, but relational entities which contribute to local identity
* Associate Professor, Division of General Studies, UNIST[Ulsan National Institute of

Science and Technology], bradleytatar@gmail.com
through their enactment in the landscape.
* This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea

(NRF) Grant funded by the Korean Government (MSIP) (No. NRF-
2015R1A5A7037825).
446·한국문화인류학 50-2(2017. 7)
국문초록
〈주요 용어〉 장소 만들기, 물질성, 경관, 울산, 고래잡이, 고래 고기
한국의 울산에서는 고래 식용에 대한 전지구적 터부를 거부하고 이를 지역의 정체성에 있

어서 중요한 사회적 실천으로 간주한다. 구체적으로 울산시 남구에서는 고래문화특구를 공
간적 영역으로 구성하여 고래에 관련된 사회적 실천을 수행한다. 본 논문에서는 경관 개념
을 활용하여, 울산에서 장소 만들기를 통해 고래를 물적 실체로 구성하는 양상을 고찰하였
다. 연구 결과 고래가 다음과 같은 세 가지의 물적 실체로 구분됨을 파악하였다: 과학적 연
구 대상으로서의 고래, 음식으로서의 고래, 그리고 보존의 대상으로서의 고래. 본고에서는
이와 같이 물화된 고래의 다양한 의미가 상호 연관되어 있으며, 이들이 모두 울산의 특정 경
관 속에서 지역 정체성으로서 구현됨을 주장한다.

Placemaking Landscape Materialities Offprint PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Placemaking Landscape Materialities Offprint PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

별쇄본

연구논문·한국문화인류학 50–2 : 405~446(2017. 7) 한국문화인류학회

Place - making, Landscape and Materialities:

Every year, the city of Ulsan on the southeast coast of Korea

* Associate Professor, Division of General Studies, UNIST[Ulsan National Institute of

authentic part of Korean culture(중앙데일리, 2005.06.23.). However,

although a culture represents an “invented tradition,” this does not

as the Jangsaengpo Whale Meat Merchants’ Cooperative 장생포고래

communicate the idea that whaling is the heart of Ulsan’s identity.

Knowledge Economy, and it combines many different forms in

In a single landscape, the Jangsaengpo SCWZ combines different

1) Theoretical Perspectives on Materiality, Landscape and Nature

Anthropologists have recently focused attention on natural

study of resources is the making of landscapes, which is the shaping

relations, making them seem natural and enduring.” Social actors

I have carried out fieldwork for the study of the Jangsaengpo

practices, because these are central to the production of “discourses of

2) The Problem of Place and Identity in Ulsan, Jangsaengpo

On November 24, 2009, I observed the ceremony of inauguration

ceremony was attended by Japanese public officials representing Taiji

The visible influence of Taiji in Ulsan illustrates a central question

depicting whaling as pertaining to locally bounded, homogeneous

illustrated by three materializations of whales in the Ulsan landscape:

2. Context of the Research

1) Contemporary Social Conflict over Whaling

The practice of eating whale meat in Ulsan is controversial, because

whaling approved by the International Whaling Commission(IWC).

incidental consumption of whales may be driving the minke whale

The start of modern whaling in Asia began in 1890, when Russian

construction of the flensing(whale meat processing) facility, 고래해체장

Hence, from the Japanese colonization of Korea came the idea

were also the beginnings of a colonial regime of conservation or

implemented”(Watanabe 2009: 89). Protection regimes were allowed,

3. Materialities of Whales in Ulsan Jangsaengpo

1) Whale as Object of Natural History

As explained in the introduction, in the contemporary Jangsaengpo

[Figure 1] Nam–gu Chief Executive Kim Doo–gyeom and other leaders

bearing a machete in one hand and a rope in another; the points of

[Figure 2] Two additional

However, in contrast to Japanese case in which whales became

Many people in Jangsaengpo consider that eating whale meat is the

is important to ask, what binds this social practice to this particular

as construction of a whale museum, [and the] restoration of the

of president Lee Myung–bak(경향신문, 2012.07.11.).

without buying it.

Although the central purpose of the whale meat processing facility

emphasis on the display of tools and equipment which were taken

The material representation of the flensing facility is the result

[Figure 4] The “Old Village of Jangsaengpo” replica of the flensing facility

[Figure 5] The “Old Village of Jangsaengpo” display of flensing knives and

for entertainment, as it is a representation of the values of the people

3) Whale as Object of Conservation

The gray whale is an elusive whale which has become a sort of

and Chun 1977). One commentator has argued, “There is no meaning

[of the designation as natural monument], if there is no gray whale

the gray whale is to contradict the importance of whaling, which

upon the opening of the International Whaling Commission”(시사저널,

gray whale, or to emphasize its similarity to Koreans (rather than to

as an effort to humanize the whale, so that people will stop hunting

meat restaurants located a few meters away from Korea’s CRI?

Whaling is a way of using nature that has descended from thousands of

[Figure 6] The monument overlooking Jangsaengpo Inlet which announces

4. Discussion and Conclusion