Dark Side of Seoul Podcast
The Weird Science Behind Korean Food Nationalism
Episode Description
A 2023 paper published in the Journal of Ethnic Foods argues that Korean cuisine developed in isolation, authentic Korean food isn't spicy, and even that royal court cuisine isn't truly Korean. In this episode, we examine the paper's historical, linguistic, archaeological, and scientific claims to see where the evidence supports the authors and where nationalism appears to outweigh scholarship.
Topics Discussed
Why Korean food doesn't need exaggerated origin stories
The concept of food nationalism
The "Hermit Kingdom" myth
Did Korean cuisine really develop in isolation?
Is banchan unique to Korea?
Claims that Korean food has no sugar or oil
Korean language and the outdated Ural-Altaic theory
Ancient DNA and whether genetics can explain cuisine
The debate over chili peppers and Korean food history
Why the paper argues royal court cuisine isn't Korean
How academic papers should distinguish evidence from advocacyTimestamps
00:00 Introduction
03:12 Why this paper caught our attention
08:45 "Correcting" Korean food history
15:20 Korea as an isolated civilization
22:08 Is banchan unique?
28:41 The claims about sugar, oil, and Korean cooking
35:15 Pottery, archaeology, and food history
42:10 Genetics, language, and extraordinary conclusions
49:55 The chili pepper controversy
56:30 Royal court cuisine and cultural identity
1:02:45 Final thoughts
Mentioned During the Episode
Science and Philosophy of Korea Traditional Foods (K-food) (Journal of Ethnic Foods, 2023)
Traditional Korean cuisine
Kimchi
Banchan
Joseon royal cuisine
Korean food history
The Columbian Exchange
Ural-Altaic language theoryListen & Follow
Website: https://darksideofseoul.com
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-dark-side-of-seoul-podcast/id1504623984
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1lZBXNX79kwH2NXcJWNcb8 Patreon: https://patreon.com/darksideofseoul
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@darksideofseoul
Instagram: https://instagram.com/darksideofseoul
Facebook: https://facebook.com/darksideofseoul
Contact: [email protected]
About The Dark Side of Seoul
The Dark Side of Seoul explores Korea's darker history, folklore, true crime, urban legends, supernatural traditions, forgotten places, and the cultural stories that don't usually appear in guidebooks. New episodes include deep historical dives alongside our "Fun Sized" discussions of current events, controversies, and unusual aspects of life in Korea.
Notes
Science and philosophy of Korea traditional foods (K-food)
Dae Young Kwon,
Kim Soon-Hee,
Kyung Rhan Chung,
James W. Daily &
Sunmin Park
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42779-023-00194-3
Introduction
Why This Paper Matters
On the surface, this looks like an ordinary academic paper.
It was published in 2023 in the Journal of Ethnic Foods, an open-access journal published by BioMed Central. It has multiple authors, references dozens of sources, and presents itself as a scientific examination of Korean food history and philosophy.
But once you start reading it closely, something becomes obvious.
The paper repeatedly makes sweeping historical, linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and anthropological claims that either go well beyond the available evidence or directly contradict mainstream scholarship. Rather than weighing competing explanations, it almost always arrives at the same conclusion: Korean food is uniquely independent, uniquely original, and fundamentally separate from neighboring cultures.
That is what makes this paper interesting.
Not because it's simply "wrong." Plenty of academic papers contain mistakes.
It's interesting because it reflects a broader pattern that occasionally appears in Korean public discourse, media, and even academia: the desire to demonstrate Korean exceptionalism through scientific language.
The Bigger Pattern
Much of the paper revolves around proving things don't merely exist in Korea.
older than everyone else's
more original than everyone else's
scientifically superior
impossible to have borrowed from neighboring culturesIt's the same pattern behind claims that:
Korean is uniquely logical.
Korean relationships are deeper because of speech levels.
Metal chopsticks create better surgeons.
Koreans excel at archery because of chopsticks.
Kimchi predates chili peppers.
Everything distinctive must have originated in Korea.Some of these are harmless internet folklore.
Others find their way into books, museums, newspapers, documentaries, and occasionally academic publications.
Why This Happens
None of this appeared in a vacuum.
Modern Korea emerged from colonization, war, dictatorship, and decades of being culturally overshadowed by larger neighbors. Building a strong national identity was an understandable project.
The problem comes when pride begins driving the research instead of the research informing the pride.
Good scholarship starts with evidence and follows wherever it leads.
Nationalistic scholarship often starts with the conclusion and works backwards.
That doesn't make every conclusion false.
It does make readers ask a very different question:
"Is this trying to discover the truth?"
"Is this trying to prove something?"
This paper often feels like the latter.
1. The Authors Set Themselves Up as the Correctors of History
Page 1
"Nevertheless, until now, the history of food on the Korean Peninsula has been mainly studied by history scholars who can read Chinese characters rather than by natural scientists, resulting in errors and distortions in our understanding of the identity, history, and originality of Korean food.
In this paper, we aim to correct these errors and distortions and to present scientifically validated research... Furthermore, we also aim to provide scientific truths..."
Problems
The paper begins by declaring that historians have distorted Korean food history while positioning the authors as the ones who possess the "scientific truths."
Throughout the paper they continue using historical texts whenever those texts support their conclusions while dismissing them when they do not.
It's an unusual way to frame an academic paper. Most research begins with questions, not with a declaration that previous scholarship is fundamentally wrong.2. Korea Developed in Isolation
Page 2
"The early Korean population developed their characteristic foods in relative isolation from other regions of Asia due to the oceans and rugged mountains surrounding the country.
Therefore, we must be very careful when discussing the culture and history of Korean food through Chinese books...
Korea has historically been geographically isolated... it was also so historically resistant to outside influences and interactions that it was commonly called the 'Hermit Kingdom.'"
Problems
This compresses thousands of years of Korean history into an isolation narrative.
Korea maintained continuous contact with China, Japan, Jurchens, Mongols, and others through diplomacy, trade, religion, migration, and warfare.
"Hermit Kingdom" describes a particular period of late Joseon diplomacy, not Korea's entire historical development.3. Banchan Exists Nowhere Else
Page 2
"Another distinctive feature of Korean cuisine is the unique presentation of bap and banchan...
We call this banchan culture, and it is a food culture that does not exist in any other country in the world."
Problems
Korea's version is distinctive.
The concept of eating a staple grain with multiple shared side dishes exists throughout East and Southeast Asia.
The paper turns a distinctive tradition into an absolute claim.4. Korea Had No Sugar or Oil
Pages 2-3
"Not only do we have a different ethnic root than China, but we also do not have oil or sugar as elements to make food delicious agriculturally."
"In an environment where livestock and dairy products did not exist, where sugar to provide a sweet taste was unavailable, and where there was no oil to enhance the flavor..."
Problems
Traditional Korean cooking uses sesame oil, perilla oil, honey, rice syrup (조청), and malt syrup.
Traditional desserts like yakgwa depend on both oil and sweeteners.
The paper repeatedly describes Korea as lacking ingredients that are well documented in Korean culinary history.5. Tasteless Vegetables Are the Soul of Korean Food
Page 3
"As with all vegetables and herbs, they have less flavor when they do not contain salt, fat, or protein.
The essence of Korean cuisine lies in the spirit and wisdom of Korean ancestors on how to eat these tasteless vegetables deliciously, which can be said to be the soul of Korean food."
Problems
This is philosophy rather than food science.
It's a perfectly reasonable cultural reflection.
It should not be presented as scientific evidence.6. Pottery Alone Proves Independent Food Culture
Page 4
"The earthenware vessels found in Korea during the ancient times were... mostly different from that of China.
From this alone, we can tell that the food culture of ancient times in Korea was independently formed from that of China."
Problems
"From this alone" is an enormous leap.
Archaeologists do not infer entire culinary traditions from pottery styles alone.
Different pottery demonstrates different pottery.7. Korean and Chinese Are Completely Different Peoples
Pages 4-5
"The Korean and Chinese peoples are ethnologically different nations."
"Korea has continued to develop independently thereby developing and preserving its own culture and history without being culturally absorbed by the country of China."
Problems
Korean civilization certainly developed its own identity.
But history also documents centuries of exchange in religion, administration, philosophy, literature, technology and cuisine.
The paper repeatedly frames influence as something that either happened completely or not at all.8. Korean Is Related to Hungarian and Finnish
Page 5
"Korean is classified as Ural-Altaic (Trans-Eurasian), which is completely different from the Chinese language system (India-Europe).
Korean belongs to the same linguistic family as Manchurian, Mongolian, Japanese, Hungarian, and Finnish."
Problems
Chinese is not Indo-European.
The Ural-Altaic hypothesis has largely been abandoned by historical linguists.
This entire linguistic discussion has little bearing on culinary history.9. Ancient DNA Proves Korean Food Didn't Come from China
Pages 5-6
"The rapid decline in male genetic diversity... suggests that during the war, the invaders slaughtered men and humiliated women."
"Therefore, it is a false claim that Korean food came from either China or Japan through men's communication.
Wars have not advanced the development of food.
Had mothers' languages not changed after the war, their food would not have changed either."
Problems
This is probably the biggest logical leap in the paper.
Population genetics cannot determine where recipes originated.
The authors move directly from Bronze Age Y-chromosome bottlenecks to twentieth-century arguments about Korean cuisine.10. Korea Had No Livestock, Dairy, Sugar or Oil
Page 6
"In an environment where livestock and dairy products did not exist... where sugar... was unavailable... and where there was no oil to enhance the flavor..."
Problems
This repeats and expands an earlier claim.
Historically Korea had livestock.
It had oils.
It had traditional sweeteners.
The statement is presented far more absolutely than the historical record supports.11. Korean Food Is Never Spicy
Page 16
"Foreigners who do not understand this come to believe that Korean food is very spicy.
In reality, authentic Korean food is never hot because chili pepper varieties cultivated in Korea are not hot."
Problems
Korean peppers are generally milder than many Southeast Asian varieties.
That does not make Korean food "never hot."
This swings from one extreme myth to the opposite extreme.12. Royal Court Cuisine Isn't Korean
Page 16
"Royal court cuisine and jongka cuisine are not Korean food; they are based on Chinese food."
Problems
One of the paper's most extraordinary conclusions.
Royal cuisine developed inside Korean courts, by Korean cooks, over centuries.
Cultural influence does not erase cultural identity.13. The Paper Contradicts Itself About Foreign Influence
Pages 16-17
The paper argues wars and foreign influence did not shape Korean food.
"Inexpensive wheat flour from the USA replaced the more expensive rice with flour, which has greatly contributed to the development of pajeon, tteokbokki, and kuksu."
Problems
This is exactly the kind of foreign influence the paper spends earlier chapters minimizing.
It acknowledges that American food aid transformed important Korean dishes after the Korean War.Structural Problems
Heavy self-citation
Many of the paper's key citations are previous publications by the lead author. The article often cites earlier books and papers by Kwon to support Kwon's current arguments.
Personal communications as evidence
One of the key claims about ancient Korean chili peppers relies on an unpublished personal communication rather than peer-reviewed evidence.
Conclusions precede the evidence
Throughout the paper, the conclusion remains remarkably consistent:
Korean food is uniquely independent.
Korean food is uniquely original.
Korean food is uniquely healthy.
Korean food is fundamentally separate from neighboring cuisines.The evidence is then selected and interpreted to support those conclusions.
Closing
Korean cuisine is extraordinary.
It doesn't need exaggerated origin stories.
It doesn't become less Korean because chili peppers came from the Americas.
It doesn't become less Korean because Buddhism came through China.
It doesn't become less Korean because dumplings arrived with the Mongols.
Every great cuisine is built through centuries of borrowing, adapting, refining, and making ideas its own.
Ironically, that's exactly what makes Korean food so interesting.
The strongest case for Korean cuisine isn't that it developed in complete isolation.
It's that Korea took influences from around the world and transformed them into something unmistakably Korean. That story is both more believable and far more impressive.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
