Introduction
In Naedong-ri, a village in Jindo County, South Jeolla Province, South Korea, there is a tomb site located on a low hill that preserves around 50 tombs (originally estimated at 100). According to local accounts, these tombs were created in the aftermath of the celebrated Battle of Myeongnyang, a sea battle between Korea and Japan in 1597, a key episode in the Imjin Wars (1592–1598). For nearly four centuries, the site remained unknown beyond the local community. This changed in 2002, when the then-director of the Jindo Cultural Centre, Park Joo Eon (hereafter Park), learned of the site, known as Waedeoksan, from the village magistrate during a local field survey. The magistrate, Lee Ki Su (hereafter Lee), explained that Waedeoksan was a burial ground for Japanese naval soldiers whose bodies had been washed ashore after the battle. He added that this account was a local oral tradition of Naedong-ri, said to have been transmitted for more than 400 years (Park Reference Park2022: 46).
According to Lee, the oral tradition recounts that the Joseon Jindo people discovered the corpses of Japanese soldiers washed ashore by the waves. Pitying these men who had perished in a foreign land, they collected approximately 100 bodies and buried them facing Japan as an act of virtue and compassion (Park Reference Park2022: 47). The name “Waedeoksan” (倭德山) has thus been interpreted to mean “a mountain for the Japanese soldiers as an act of virtue.” Literally, Wae is the traditional proper noun—often pejorative—referring to Japanese people; deok translates as “virtue”; and san means “mountain” in Korean. Upon hearing this account, Park visited the site and then confirmed that the term “Waedeoksan” was recorded in several genealogical documents (Park Reference Park2022: 48). He subsequently publicized the discovery nationwide through major broadcasting stations, presenting it as an extraordinary site that demonstrated the Joseon Jindo people’s virtue and benevolence (Table 2 in Appendix B). The genealogical records cited here belong to the Changnyeong Jo descent group (昌寧 曺氏).
It is important to note that, before Park’s intervention, the oral tradition of Waedeoksan had been preserved only within the village itself. Unlike other Korean oral genres such as minyo (folk song) or muga (shamanic epic), the Waedeoksan narrative survived primarily as spoken historical memory. Rather than being transmitted as song, chant, or ritualized performance, local accounts state that it was recalled and retold among village elders when asked about local history. As conveyed by the former village magistrate Lee in interviews, the account was delivered not as stylized performance but as a matter-of-fact explanation of the tombs’ origins. This suggests that the tradition functioned less as a formal oral genre and more as a form of localized historical memory—an episodic explanation preserved within the community’s collective consciousness for over four centuries. The absence of evidence of a ritualized or musical format may itself be significant, indicating that the narrative served primarily as a cultural explanation of a place, rather than as a distinct genre of oral literature.
After news of the site eventually reached Japan in 2006, several groups of Japanese visitors came to Jindo. However, it was in 2022 that Waedeoksan entered the mainstream spotlight, when former Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio (2009–2010) visited the site, offered a tribute, thanked the Joseon Jindo people for their aid, and publicly apologized for Japan’s past actions (Byun, Newsis, September 24, Reference Byun2022; Lee, Seoul Newspaper, September 22, Reference Lee2022). Against the backdrop of existing controversies surrounding Korea–Japan history and heritage—such as the disputes over the “Comfort Women” documents nominated for the Memory of the World Register, Japan’s nomination of the Sado Mines for World Heritage, and the sovereignty of Dokdo Island—Waedeoksan was perceived as a rare opportunity to open a new narrative of reconciliation between the two countries (Lee Reference Lee2019; Lee et al. Reference Lee, Sørensen and Zhu2023; Vickers Reference Vickers2021).
However, visitors to Jindo today will find no signs or information panels marking Waedeoksan (Figure 1). This absence reflects the fact that both the site and the oral tradition have arguably become—or have been made into—an academically controversial and politically sensitive dispute. The turning point came in 2022, when Korean historian Lee Se Young (professor emeritus, Hanshin University) publicly criticized the Waedeoksan narrative, arguing that it had been broadcast and entrenched despite “no justifiable or valid archaeological or historical evidence” (Lee, Yaehyang Newspaper, February 17, Reference Lee, Sørensen and Zhu2023). Lee insisted that archaeological excavations should have been conducted before making and publicizing such significant claims. Central to his critique was that the genealogical record used to “confirm” Waedeoksan as a tomb site for Japanese naval soldiers was compiled more than three centuries after the events of 1597, and therefore lacked precision or validity. Should the tombs ultimately prove unrelated to Japanese soldiers, Lee argued, the episode would constitute a serious embarrassment for Jindo County as well as for the Korean media outlets that had promoted the story—especially given that a former Japanese prime minister had already issued a formal apology based on its publication.
A photograph of the “Waedeoksan” tomb site in Jindo. Source: Photograph taken by the author, 2024.
Consequently, the oral tradition of Waedeoksan has become—or has been made into—a controversial and politically sensitive dispute. On one side, advocates seek to publicize and promote it as a narrative of reconciliation; on the other, critics argue that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate such claims. In this sense, the site has undergone a dynamic process: from quiet local memory to national publicity to intentional blurring and silence. At the heart of the issue lies the uncertain “potential” of the tombs: They may either reinforce a more conciliatory historical narrative between Korea and Japan, or else prove to have no connection to the Japanese naval soldiers at all.
This article pursues two interrelated objectives. First, it traces how the local oral tradition of Waedeoksan—initially confined to Naedong-ri in Jindo—was discovered, publicized, and ultimately transformed into a nationally and transnationally contested historical dispute. Second, it uses Waedeoksan as a case study to interrogate broader questions in the politics of heritage: the evidentiary challenges posed by oral traditions, the role of media in amplifying or blurring contested pasts, and the multi-scalar nature of memory politics in Korea and Japan. In clarifying these aims, the article positions Waedeoksan not only as a specific controversy but also as a lens through which to understand how local narratives become entangled in broader national and international heritage discourses.
Methodology
This study draws on a combination of theoretical literature, primary fieldwork, and secondary documentary sources to examine how the Waedeoksan oral tradition was discovered, publicized, and subsequently contested.
For theoretical insights, scholarship on the meanings and roles of oral traditions was reviewed to contextualize the status and significance of Waedeoksan in the present. Primary data consisted of two in-depth interviews conducted during fieldwork in Jindo between April 1–4, 2024: one with the former director of the Jindo Cultural Centre, who first publicized Waedeoksan, and one with the historian who has since criticized the narrative. These interviews provided direct perspectives from the principal actors shaping and contesting the discourse (Appendix A).
Secondary sources included the booklet produced for the first and only symposium on Waedeoksan, held in Jindo on September 23, 2022, as well as a corpus of newspaper articles published between 2003 and 2022 (Appendix B). Newspapers were selected because they constituted the primary medium through which Waedeoksan entered public consciousness beyond Jindo. As the controversy unfolded, the press not only reported events but also framed the narrative for national and international audiences, shaping both local responses and Japanese awareness. For this reason, newspapers are treated here not merely as factual records but as evidence of discursive framing. The articles, compiled in Appendix B, were analyzed qualitatively with attention to tone and framing devices (e.g., reconciliation, skepticism, neutrality). Because South Korean newspapers often reflect distinct political orientations—progressive, conservative, or centrist—the analysis further examined how these leanings influenced portrayals of Waedeoksan.
Between late 2002 and 2003, Park Joo Eon introduced the Waedeoksan narrative through several domestic broadcast and print outlets, including interviews on regional television and short newspaper features publicizing Jindo’s cultural assets. In these early appearances, Park consistently emphasized two themes: first, the moral message of Jindo villagers burying Japanese soldiers “as an act of virtue” and, second, the symbolic potential of Waedeoksan to contribute to Korea–Japan reconciliation. Although these early reports were limited in length and are not fully preserved in online archives, they played a pivotal role in first disseminating the name “Waedeoksan” beyond Naedong-ri and establishing the interpretive frame that later actors—both Korean and Japanese—would adopt. Systematic press coverage remained intermittent in the years that followed, and many materials from the mid-2000s to the 2010s are difficult to retrieve through accessible digital databases. For this reason, the qualitative media analysis in this article focuses on the period 2020–2022, when verifiable digital records are consistently available and when Waedeoksan re-emerged more prominently in public discourse. Appendix B therefore lists the articles included in the dataset for which reliable archival access exists.
The structure of the article is as follows: the section “Theoretical insights: The roles and meanings of oral traditions in the present” reviews theoretical perspectives on oral traditions; the section “A concise historical background of the context of ‘Waedeoksan’: The Battle of Myeongnyang between Korea and Japan” provides a concise historical background to the Battle of Myeongnyang, the proposed context of Waedeoksan; the section “The discovery and publicizing of ‘Waedeoksan’ in 2003” traces the discovery and publicizing of Waedeoksan; the section “The opposition against ‘Waedeoksan’” presents the opposition to the narrative; and the section “Discussion: How does ‘Waedeoksan’ stand today?” discusses the site’s current controversial status before the section “Conclusions” concludes.
Theoretical insights: The roles and meanings of oral traditions in the present
Scholars have long debated the value and limits of oral tradition as a historical source. Vansina (Reference Vansina1965) defined oral traditions as “documents of the present” that carry messages inherited from the past, while Wright (Reference Henry M.2015: 120) stressed that they are socially meaningful but rely on memory for transmission across generations, making them both valuable and fragile. Oral traditions thus embody cultural memory and community identity, yet their evidentiary precision is inevitably vulnerable to distortion, exaggeration, and loss.
Building on discussion of Thompson’s (Reference Thompson1979) Rubbish Theory, heritage can be understood not as a fixed category, but as something selectively “promoted” or “blurred” depending on present needs. Narratives or sites may be elevated to symbolic importance or, conversely, downplayed to avoid controversy, illustrating how heritage is always produced through contemporary choices about what parts of the past to value. Finally, Smith (Reference Smith2022) highlights that past sites and narratives often serve as “political resources” charged with identity and belonging, making them contested arenas of memory. Following Samuel’s (Reference Samuel1994) formulation of “theatres of memory,” such places become stages where groups negotiate and struggle over meanings of the past in light of present concerns.
These insights, to some extent, provide a framework for interpreting Waedeoksan. As several scholars note, oral traditions become most contested when mobilized beyond their local contexts and enter national or international arenas (Wright Reference Henry M.2015; Smith Reference Smith2022). In such settings, their social value as community memory confronts demands for evidentiary verification, producing disputes over validity and political consequence. The Waedeoksan case exemplifies this dynamic: A narrative once confined to Naedong-ri was elevated through media publicity and Japanese recognition, only to be subsequently blurred amid scholarly criticism and political sensitivity.
A concise historical background of the context of “Waedeoksan”: The Battle of Myeongnyang between Korea and Japan
According to the oral tradition of Naedong-ri village, the origins of Waedeoksan are linked to the Battle of Myeongnyang (鳴梁), a sea battle fought on the sixteenth day of the ninth lunar month of 1597 (October 26, 1597, solar calendar) during the 30th year of King Seonjo’s reign. The battle formed part of the Imjin War (1592–1598), a seven-year conflict between Joseon Korea and Japan. The war unfolded in two phases: the first invasion in 1592, followed by a second invasion in 1597 after a four-year stalemate. The latter campaign lasted from August 27, 1597, until December 16, 1598, when Japanese forces finally withdrew. Historians have described the Imjin Wars as “one of the most traumatic events in Korean history” (Swope Reference Swope2007: 154), reflecting the existential threat faced by Joseon.
The Battle of Myeongnyang is remembered as one of the most remarkable victories in Korean history. Prior to the battle, the Joseon navy had suffered severe defeats, leaving only 12 operational warships out of an original 180 (Je Reference Je2007: 27). Nevertheless, under the command of Admiral Yi Sunsin, these 12 ships confronted 133 Japanese vessels in the narrow Myeongnyang Strait (Uldolmok) and secured a decisive victory (Lim Reference Lim2008). Contemporary records state that 31 Japanese ships were sunk and 92 disabled, and approximately 18,466 soldiers were killed (Jung Reference Jung2018: 77). Yi’s leadership, the strategic use of geography, and the superior performance of Joseon warships all contributed to this unlikely triumph (Jung Reference Jung2016: 96). For these reasons, Admiral Yi has long been revered as one of Korea’s most respected national figures. His life and military achievements have been repeatedly represented in popular culture: the 104-episode television series Immortal Admiral Yi Sunsin achieved peak ratings of 32.3%, while the 2014 film The Admiral: Roaring Currents drew a record-breaking 17.6 million viewers, the highest audience figure for any Korean film to date. Yi Sunsin thus remains deeply embedded in Korea’s cultural consciousness.
A vast body of scholarship exists on the Battle of Myeongnyang, but the purpose here is simply to outline the historical context relevant to Waedeoksan. Geographically, the battle took place in the Uldolmok Strait between Haenam and Jindo in South Jeolla Province. The name “Uldolmok”—literally “roaring channel”—derives from the sound of the rushing tides crashing against the shore (Lee, DongA Ilbo, September 25, 2022). Geographically, the Waedeoksan site in Naedong-ri is located approximately 3–4 km northeast of the Myeongnyang Strait. The tidal currents in Uldolmok are among the strongest in Korea and are strongly reversing: Flood tides set southwards into the strait, while ebb tides set northwards toward Jindo. Peak velocities have been recorded at 6–7 m/s by the Korea Hydrographic and Oceanographic Agency (KHOA).Footnote 1 Given these hydrological conditions, it is physically plausible that bodies or wreckage from the Battle of Myeongnyang could have been carried toward Jindo’s shores, (Figure 2) where the Waedeoksan site is situated.
The sea shore near Naedong-ri, which is where the oral tradition states that the Japanese naval soldiers were found by the Joseon Jindo people. Source: Photograph taken by the author, 2024.
Explanations for Joseon’s improbable victory generally emphasize three factors. First, Admiral Yi’s strategic use of the narrow channel and his incorporation of volunteer soldiers from refugee ships proved decisive. Second, his leadership boosted both the combat strength of the frontline and the morale of his outnumbered crew. Third, Joseon warships outperformed their Japanese counterparts in both design and weaponry (Jung Reference Jung2016: 96). Taken together, these elements enabled Joseon, under Admiral Yi’s command, to secure victory against overwhelming odds at Myeongnyang.
This is the point at which the local oral tradition of Waedeoksan begins. It is important to emphasize that no documentary evidence exists to confirm that the local population buried Japanese soldiers, nor that the site was known as Waedeoksan in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Myeongnyang. According to the oral account recited by the former village magistrate Lee, Japanese soldiers killed in the battle were swept ashore by the waves. The people of Jindo, pitying those who had died in a foreign land, are said to have gathered approximately 100 bodies and buried them in tombs oriented toward Japan. In this tradition, Waedeoksan was created shortly after the battle, more than four centuries ago (Jo, Yonhap News, September 22, Reference Jo2022).
The discovery and publicizing of “Waedeoksan” in 2003
Until 2002, discussion of Waedeoksan beyond the borders of Naedong-ri village in Jindo is not known to have occurred. According to contemporary reports, knowledge of the site was confined to local residents (Jeon, Kookmin Ilbo, September 26, 2022). This changed when an expedition group—including representatives of the Jindo Cultural Centre and a County Councilor—toured the Sambyeolcho Battlefield area in northeastern Jindo (Park Reference Park2022: 46). The field survey was guided by the then village magistrate, Lee Ki Su.
Following the visit, Park Joo Eon, the former Director of the Jindo Cultural Centre, met privately with Lee to ask whether any significant sites had been omitted from the tour. In response, Lee spoke of “Waedeoksan—the place where the people of Jindo showed virtue and compassion to the Japanese naval soldiers” (Park Reference Park2022: 46). He explained that Waedeoksan was a local oral tradition said to have been passed down for over four centuries. According to this tradition, after the Battle of Myeongnyang, the bodies of Japanese soldiers were swept ashore by the tides near Naedong-ri, where local residents gathered and buried them.
The people of Jindo are said to have come across the corpses of Japanese naval soldiers and buried them facing Japan, naming the site “Waedeoksan” (Park Reference Park2022: 47). The tradition places the construction of the tombs in 1597, with the original number estimated at 100; today, however, only about 50 remain, as part of the site was later cleared and converted into farmland (Park Reference Park2022: 47). Park consistently emphasized the moral lesson of this narrative: that the Jindo villagers did not treat the fallen as enemies, but as unfortunate souls who had perished in a foreign land. To support the story, Lee presented him with the genealogical record of the Jindo Changnyeong Jo clan, which contains the term “Waedeoksan” along with coordinates locating the tombs (Park Reference Park2022: 48; Jung, Hangyore, September 25, 2022). On the basis of this conversation and his consultation of the genealogy, Park began promoting Waedeoksan through national media outlets, transforming what had been a quiet local tradition into a nationally publicized story.
The genealogical record of the Changnyeong Jo clan that Park consulted contains a brief but notable reference to Waedeoksan. In the 1922 compiled edition (Changnyeong Jo ssi jokbo [昌寧 曺氏 族譜]), the entry for the Naedong-ri branch includes the phrase 「倭德山 墓域」, literally “the cemetery of Waedeoksan,” which situates the tombs geographically in the village’s territory. While the record does not describe the circumstances of its origin or specify the identity of those buried, its use of the term “Waedeoksan” indicates that, by the early twentieth century, the name was already established in written form. The genealogy, however, was compiled more than three centuries after the Battle of Myeongnyang and therefore cannot serve as direct historical confirmation of a burial of Japanese soldiers. Nevertheless, it provides evidence that the toponymal Waedeoksan circulated beyond oral memory and was recorded in clan history, bridging oral and textual transmission.Footnote 2
The historical relationship between Korea and Japan is widely regarded as “difficult,” “dark,” and “sensitive” (Johnsen Reference Johnsen2022; Lee Reference Lee2019; Lee et al. Reference Lee, Sørensen and Zhu2023; Vickers Reference Vickers2021). Points of contention include the presence of Japanese colonial architecture in South Korea (Lee Reference Lee2019), the ongoing nomination of “Comfort Women” documents to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s Memory of the World Register (Lee et al. Reference Lee, Sørensen and Zhu2023; Vickers Reference Vickers2021), and Japan’s bid to register the Sado Mines as a World Heritage Site (Johnsen Reference Johnsen2022). Together, these disputes highlight how historical discourse between the two nations remains predominantly adversarial rather than reconciliatory. Against this backdrop, the publication of Waedeoksan initially raised hopes that it might offer a rare “message of reconciliation and peace” (Lee, DongA Ilbo, September 25, 2022). The site was presented as an “incredible story” (Jo, Yonhap News, September 22, Reference Jo2022), orally transmitted for over four centuries (Moon, Joongang Ilbo, October 17, 2022) yet long unpublicized, as local residents believed it was “not something to brag about” (Jung, Hangyore, September 25, 2022).
The domestic publicity generated between 2002 and 2003 created a coherent narrative that framed Waedeoksan as a site of compassion and reconciliation. Although the coverage did not circulate internationally at that time, it established the storyline that Park later conveyed directly to Japanese researchers and visitors. This domestic framing formed the narrative basis for how the legend would subsequently be received abroad.
The earliest point at which Waedeoksan entered Japanese public consciousness was in 2006, when Professor Takeyoshi Higuma of Hiroshima Metropolitan University learned of the site directly from Park during a visit to Jindo. Higuma subsequently published a short article in a local Japanese newspaper, which drew the attention of the Kurushima Michifusa Society, a heritage group commemorating Admiral Kurushima, who was killed at Myeongnyang. Higuma’s article reproduced the interpretive frame he received from Park—namely, that Waedeoksan represented a rare example of Joseon compassion toward Japanese war dead—thereby introducing the Korean-origin narrative directly into Japanese public discourse. From that year onward, members of the society began making annual visits to Jindo to bow at the Waedeoksan tombs (Moon, Joongang Ilbo, October 17, 2022). These annual pilgrimages illustrate how a narrative constructed in Korean media and local memory was appropriated by Japanese heritage groups who saw in the site a meaningful place of transnational commemoration. This line of transmission—Korean media publicity in 2003 → Park’s introduction in 2006 → Higuma’s publication → visits by the Kurushima Society—represents the key channel through which Waedeoksan became known in Japan. It also laid the foundation for subsequent high-profile engagements, most notably former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s 2022 memorial speech.
The opposition against “Waedeoksan”
If the years from 2003 to 2022 represented a phase of selective “promotion” of Waedeoksan as a symbol of virtue and reconciliation, the controversy that followed marked the beginning of its “blurring.” From 2022 onward, academic criticism and political caution began to challenge the narrative, casting doubt on its evidentiary basis and reshaping Waedeoksan into a contested site rather than a celebrated one.
The first major public attack on the Waedeoksan narrative appeared on February 17, 2023, in a newspaper article by the historian Lee Se Young titled “The Unfortunate Narrative of Waedeoksan” (Yaehyang Jindo Newspaper). In the piece, Lee recalled that, after returning to his hometown, Jindo, in late 2020, he encountered a “local historian” who was actively publicizing Waedeoksan as part of Jindo’s history. Lee criticized this practice as careless, arguing that it relied solely on oral traditions and ignored questions of validity. He further claimed that Waedeoksan had been a source of controversy since its first national publication in 2003 and again in 2019, and should not have been promoted as historical fact without archaeological corroboration (Lee, Yaehyang Jindo Newspaper, February 17, Reference Lee, Sørensen and Zhu2023).
To clarify Lee’s position, his 2023 article set out five main points. First, the actual name of the site (known today as Mount 162) cannot be confirmed for the year 1597, immediately following the Battle of Myeongnyang. Second, the genealogical record of the Changnyeong Jo clan, used by Park as supporting “evidence,” was only compiled in 1922—more than 350 years after the tombs were created—and therefore lacks historical precision. Third, the Waedeoksan narrative was publicized nationwide without any form of cross-checking or archaeological verification. Fourth, the village magistrate (Lee Ki Su) who originally informed Park of Waedeoksan later confessed that the matter had “escalated beyond control” and that, if he now contradicted the story, he could face legal consequences. Fifth, Lee warned that the narrative had spiraled out of proportion, with Japanese visitors holding memorial services at the site and thanking the spirits of the Jindo people. Concluding his article, he urged Jindo County to undertake formal archaeological excavations before further events were held, arguing that only excavation could resolve both the academic and political controversies surrounding Waedeoksan (Lee, Yaehyang Jindo Newspaper, February 17, Reference Lee, Sørensen and Zhu2023).
While Lee frames his intervention primarily in terms of academic rigor and the need for archaeological verification, his response also reflects broader emotional and political dynamics in contemporary South Korea. Debates surrounding Japanese-related heritage often carry strong affective weight due to fears of appearing “pro-Japanese” (친일) or inadvertently legitimizing narratives that minimize historical wrongdoing. For local officials and scholars, the risk of national embarrassment—particularly given former Prime Minister Hatoyama’s apology at the site—adds an additional layer of pressure. Lee’s insistence on verification is therefore arguably intertwined with a desire to protect both local dignity and national historical integrity, a context crucial for Western readers less familiar with the emotional landscape of Korea–Japan heritage disputes.
To allow him to expand on these arguments, a one-on-one interview was conducted with Lee on April 2, 2024, as part of the fieldwork. In this conversation, Lee emphasized that the publicizing of Waedeoksan must be understood in light of the background of Park Joo Eon, the former Director of the Jindo Cultural Centre. As Lee pointed out, Park had previously worked as a news reporter in Gwangju and did not have formal training as a historian. According to Lee, when Park heard of Waedeoksan, he recognized its potential as a sensational news story. Without archaeological or historical corroboration, Park broadcast the oral tradition as “validated history,” mobilizing national media coverage. Lee stressed that, while legends and local stories may often contain historical elements, they should not be treated as authentic history without supporting evidence. In his view, Park blurred this distinction by consuming an oral tradition as fact and disseminating it nationwide.
The final part of the interview focused on whether the Waedeoksan tombs could plausibly have been created for Japanese naval soldiers. Drawing on his expertise in the history of the Battle of Myeongnyang, Lee expressed strong doubts. He argued that Japanese forces did not abandon their war dead but, whenever possible, recovered and repatriated the bodies of their soldiers. On this basis, Lee suggested that the tombs at Mount 162 were more likely created for local Joseon inhabitants rather than Japanese troops. Importantly, Lee emphasized that he does not categorically deny the oral tradition. Instead, he drew a clear line between respecting a community narrative and publicizing it as “history.” In his view, Waedeoksan can only be validated as history through verifiable archaeological and/or documentary evidence. Without such proof, he argued, promoting the story as fact is academically irresponsible and politically dangerous.
Discussion: How does “Waedeoksan” stand today?
At this stage, the key question is: How does Waedeoksan stand today in terms of meaning and significance? A visit to the site reveals no signage or information panels, and according to the current Director of the Jindo Cultural Centre, Oh Pan Ju, these were intentionally removed to avoid attracting public attention. This cautious stance aligns with that of Lee Se Young, who insists that Waedeoksan should not be further publicized until supported by solid archaeological evidence.
By contrast, the former director, Park Joo Eon, remains committed to promoting the Waedeoksan narrative and has expressed his wish to continue holding ceremonies at the site. What emerges, therefore, is a marked divergence: An initial phase of national publicity has given way to intentional blurring and quietening. Waedeoksan today thus embodies a tension between competing approaches—promotion versus suppression—reflecting the broader uncertainties surrounding the role of oral traditions in public history.
An interview was conducted with former Director Park on April 2, 2024 (Appendix A). Rather than responding in a question-and-answer format, Park delivered an extended narrative of his role in discovering and publicizing Waedeoksan. He explained that he first heard of the site from the village magistrate and that, from Jindo’s perspective, the story should be a source of pride and presented to the world. For Park, Waedeoksan embodies an act of virtue by the Jindo people and offers an opportunity to foster reconciliation with Japan. Park acknowledged that he has been criticized and even accused of being “pro-Japanese,” but he dismissed these charges as politically motivated. In his view, opponents of the Waedeoksan narrative—many of whom, he suggested, aspire to positions such as county councilor—benefit politically from adopting a strongly anti-Japanese stance. Rather than focusing on accusations, Park argued, attention should be directed to the fact that former Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio visited Jindo and offered an apology, an outcome he considered of historic significance. Regarding the validity of the tradition, Park insisted that he had confirmed Waedeoksan in multiple genealogical records of the Changnyeong Jo clan. He further reasoned that, prior to Jindo’s modern land reclamation, seawater would have reached the present tomb site, making it plausible that Japanese corpses were washed ashore and buried there. Concluding his remarks, Park expressed regret that the current county governor and director of the Jindo Cultural Centre do not support continued promotion of Waedeoksan.
A point worth noting is the presence of another tomb site in Jindo that commemorates Joseon soldiers (Figure 3). This cemetery, managed and protected by the local government, contains 232 tombs (16 of which have been identified) and is designated as South Jeolla Province’s Cultural Heritage Material No. 216. Unlike Waedeoksan, this site is clearly signposted and officially recognized, highlighting the contrast between a protected heritage narrative and one that remains contested and blurred.
A cemetery for the Joseon soldiers who lost their lives during the Battle of Myeongnyang in Jindo, South Korea. Source: Photograph taken by the author, 2024.
This officially listed and protected cemetery for Joseon soldiers raises an unavoidable question: Who, in fact, is buried at the site that is being referred to as Waedeoksan? On this point, the oral tradition preserved for more than four centuries may be accurate—but only archaeological investigation could determine the identities of the dead with certainty. What is clear, however, is that Waedeoksan has become both controversial and politically sensitive. More than a local dispute, it has been transformed into a transnational issue, entangling Korean and Japanese actors in competing narratives of virtue, reconciliation, and historical truth.
The opposing discourses surrounding Waedeoksan underscore how the interpretation of past sites in the present can generate conflict. As Vansina and Wright remind us, oral traditions function as vital social memory yet remain fragile as historical evidence. Waedeoksan’s trajectory—first promoted and then blurred—echoes the insights of Carman and Thompson on how the past is selectively elevated or demoted according to present needs. Finally, as Smith argues, heritage sites can become “theatres of memory,” contested arenas where groups negotiate identity, belonging, and political meaning. Waedeoksan today exemplifies precisely this dynamic: a local oral tradition that has become a stage for national and transnational memory politics.
Another point to note in regard to how the site stands today is media framing and the role of the Korean press. The framing of Waedeoksan by Korean media played a decisive role in shaping its politicization. Early reports (2003–2006) adopted a reconciliatory tone, highlighting Waedeoksan as an “act of virtue” and a “message of reconciliation” (Lee, DongA Ilbo, September 25, 2022; Jo, Yonhap News, September 22, Reference Jo2022). These outlets positioned Waedeoksan as a symbolic site of forgiveness that might soften the otherwise tense Korea–Japan memory discourse. Later reports (2022–2023), however, shifted to a more skeptical mode, stressing the absence of archaeological evidence and questioning the legitimacy of Park’s claims (Lee, Yaehyang Newspaper, February 17, Reference Lee, Sørensen and Zhu2023). This shift from celebratory to critical framing demonstrates how media inclination not only amplified the narrative in its early stage but also facilitated its subsequent blurring and contestation.
While reconciliatory frames appeared across outlets, the tendency to highlight Waedeoksan as an “act of virtue” was especially visible in centrist and progressive press outlets (e.g., Joongang Ilbo, Hangyore), whereas skepticism regarding evidentiary weakness was more prominent in regional or conservative-leaning outlets (e.g., Yaehyang Newspaper). This suggests that partisan leanings may have subtly influenced how the site was reported on and contested.
On the whole, the political sensitivity of Waedeoksan can be understood on two interconnected levels. Domestically, it has produced conflict within Korea between advocates of promotion and proponents of caution. For critics such as Lee, the issue is not only methodological but also emotional and reputational. In a society where gestures toward Japan can be politically charged, the possibility of endorsing an unverified narrative—and one that has already elicited a Japanese apology—creates strong incentives for caution. This emotional backdrop helps explain the intensity of the opposition.
Park Joo Eon, the former Director of the Jindo Cultural Centre, continues to publicize Waedeoksan as a story of virtue and reconciliation, whereas historian Lee Se Young and current cultural officials insist that, without archaeological confirmation, publicity risks both academic discredit and political embarrassment at the local level. This divide has manifested institutionally in the removal of signage at the site and the reluctance of Jindo County authorities to endorse the narrative openly. Bilaterally, Waedeoksan has become entangled in Korea–Japan relations. Since 2006, Japanese groups such as the Kurushima Michifusa Society have made annual visits, and in 2022 former Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio offered a public apology at the site. These events have raised the stakes considerably: Were the tombs ultimately proven unrelated to Japanese soldiers, Korean authorities could face reputational damage both domestically and diplomatically. Waedeoksan thus exemplifies a multi-scalar politics—at once a local governance dispute and a site of transnational memory diplomacy.
Despite these developments, Waedeoksan has received only limited national and international attention compared with high-profile heritage disputes such as the “comfort women” documentation campaigns, Japan’s nomination of the Sado Mines, or the inscription of the Meiji Industrial Heritage sites. Those cases have generated sustained diplomatic exchanges and UNESCO-level contention, whereas Waedeoksan remains relatively peripheral. Nonetheless, its trajectory demonstrates how even small-scale local traditions can, under certain circumstances, be reframed into matters of bilateral significance.
Conclusions
Waedeoksan is not only a case of an oral tradition entering the public sphere but also an illustration of the multi-layered politics of contested heritage. Domestically, it has provoked disagreement between those who advocate promoting the site and those who urge caution, while bilaterally it has become entangled in Korea–Japan memory politics. The case demonstrates how a local oral tradition, once confined to Naedong-ri, was transformed through publicity, debate, and diplomacy into a transnational issue.
The trajectory of Waedeoksan—from oral memory to national publication and from celebratory framing to intentional blurring—highlights the evidentiary dilemmas of oral tradition. As Vansina and Wright remind us, oral traditions embody valuable social memory yet remain fragile as historical “evidence.” Waedeoksan’s rise and retreat exemplify the insights of Carman and Thompson into the selective “promotion” and subsequent “demotion” of elements of the past. Finally, in line with Smith’s concept of “theatres of memory,” the site has become a contested stage on which competing actors negotiate the meaning of the past for present political ends.
The broader historical context reinforces this politicization. Relations between Korea and Japan remain fraught, shaped by lingering disputes over Dokdo/Takeshima, history textbooks, wartime apologies, and heritage controversies such as the “comfort women” documents, the Sado Mines, and the Meiji Industrial Heritage sites. Within this environment, the 2022 visit of former Japanese Prime Minister—who apologized publicly at Waedeoksan—was both symbolically powerful and diplomatically risky. If the tombs were ultimately proven unrelated to Japanese soldiers, Korean authorities could face domestic embarrassment and international reputational costs.
In sum, Waedeoksan demonstrates how a seemingly peripheral oral tradition can, under the right conditions, be elevated into a matter of international sensitivity. It shows how heritage can move from glorification to contestation and from reconciliation to risk, depending on shifting political judgments. The case underscores the fragility of oral traditions when deployed in the service of heritage politics, while also revealing their enduring power to mobilize memory, identity, and diplomacy across scales.
Financial support
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A6A3A02065553).
Competing interests
The author reports there are no competing interests to declare.
Appendix A Information on the data retrieved during fieldwork (April 1–4, 2024) in Jindo, South Korea
Appendix B News articles on “Waedeoksan” that have been acquired and translated for this research (Note: all of these news articles are written in Korean)
Appendix C Timeline of Waedeoksan’s publicization and international recognition (2003–2022)
Author Biography
Minjae Zoh is a Research Professor at the Seoul National University Asia Center. Her research focuses on heritage studies, particularly the politics of heritage and shifting paradigms of heritage governance. She is the author of The Impacts of Dictatorship on Heritage Management (Vernon Press, 2020) and co-editor of Asia’s Heritage Trends: Examining Asia’s Present through its Past (Routledge, 2023).
Open access
