Over the past couple of weeks, we have been airing a series of special news reports on questionable facts that surround fossilized footprints in Seogwipo. Academic experts say the time period for when the tracks were made needs reviewing but the Cultural Heritage Administration is hesitant to call for more study. Mike Balfour has more.
[slug] Cultural Heritage Administration lukewarm on fossil re-evaluation request

Scholars are divided over when these fossil footprints in Seogwipo were made, but the Cultural Heritage Administration seems unenthusiastic about conducting a re-examination of the tracksite.


Many academics agree that there is need for a re-examination but the Cultural Heritage Administration says it has yet to receive an official request on the matter.

The Cultural Heritage Administration says the fossilized footprints date back 15,000 years based on a 2006 study by two professors.


But the Cultural Heritage Administration has not explained why it chose to quote that particular study over many others that have suggested otherwise.

It has also refused to comment on the common opinion of many experts in archeology, meteorology and geology who claim the fossil footprints were not made 15 thousand years ago but 3 to 4 thousand years ago.

[slug]
CHA ‘hesitant’ to re-examine issue

The Cultural Heritage Administration is taking a lukewarm position on re-examining the site, despite its obligation to give out precise facts about the country’s cultural heritage. The Seogwipo Provincial Government, on the other hand, remains hopeful. It says once a formal request has been made and approved, it will be possible to enter the conservation site where the footprints lie… and further research can go on from there.

[INTERVIEW]
Kim Young-gwan / Cultural Heritage Division, Seogwipo
We can examine the stratigraphy of another sample from the same region in the same condition... and if the time period turns out to be different, we may need to conduct further research with a third party organization or jointly with both parties involved.
< 김영관 / 서귀포시 문화재 담당 >
똑같은 조건, 지역에서 시·발굴 조사를 통해 지층의 단면을 조사해 연대가 상이하게 나왔을 경우 제3의 기관이나 양쪽이 공동 참여하는
///
연대 입증 조사연구가 필요할 것이라 보여집니다.

[REPORTER]
Mike Balfour

While academicians remain divided over when the fossilized footprints were made, the Cultural Heritage Administration is without comment on the matter.

Mike Balfour KCTV