SHAPING HERITAGE REGIME IN CENTRAL ASIA: BETWEEN NATIONAL NARRATIVES AND GLOBAL FRAMEWORKS: Scientific article

Nelly Bekus

doi:10.32523/3080-1281-2025-152-3-8-18

Авторы

Nelly Bekus University of Exeter Автор

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32523/3080-1281-2025-152-3-8-18

Ключевые слова:

наследие, история и политика наследия в Центральной Азии, международные институты наследия, ЮНЕСКО, ИКОМОС, идентичность, транзит, нация

Аннотация

This article analyses how cultural heritage politics in Central Asia changed during the transition from Soviet rule to independence, highlighting the interplay between national narratives and global heritage frameworks. Under Soviet rule, heritage policy balanced the promotion of local cultures with their integration into a unifying socialist identity, while selectively preserving sites and figures that fit ideological goals. Late Soviet engagement with UNESCO and ICOMOS introduced international concepts and professional networks that continued to shape the region after 1991. Independence brought efforts to redefine heritage around pre-Soviet history, Islamic traditions, and national distinctiveness. At the same time, UNESCO-led initiatives, particularly the Silk Road project, promoted intercultural connectivity and shared civilisational legacies. The result was a hybrid heritage regime—asserting national sovereignty while remaining embedded in transnational governance structures—reflecting broader tensions and shifts in global cultural politics toward pluralism and the inclusion of non-Western perspectives.

Скачивания

Данные по скачиваниям пока не доступны.

Библиографические ссылки

Adams, L. (2008). Globalization, Universalism, and Cultural Form. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 50(3), 614–640. [in English]

Aikawa, N. (2004). A Historical overview of the preparation of the UNESCO International Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Museum International, 56(1-2), 137-149. [in English]

Alonso González, P. (2016). Communism and cultural heritage: the quest for continuity. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(9), 653–663. [in English]

Bekus, N. (2020). Transnational circulation of cultural form: multiple agencies of heritage making. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(12), 1148–1165. [in English]

Bekus, N., & Cowcher, K. (2020). Socialism, Heritage and Internationalism after 1945. The Second World and Beyond. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(12), 1123–1131. [in English]

Boukhari, S. (1996). Beyond the Monuments: A Living Heritage. UNESCO Sources, 80, 7-16. [in English]

Bremmer, I. (1993). Reasserting Soviet Nationalities Theory. In I. Bremmer & R. Taras (Eds.), Nations, Politics in the Soviet Successors States (pp. 3–28). Cambridge University Press. [in English]

Cummings, S. (2010). Inscapes, Landscapes and Greyscapes: The Politics of Signiﬁcation in Central Asia. In S. Cummings (Ed.), Symbolism and Power in Central Asia (pp. 1-11). Routledge. [in English]

Deckha, N. (2004). Beyond the Country House: Historic Conservation as aesthetic politics. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(4), 403-423. [in English]

Dekalchuk, A. A., Grigoriev, I. S., & Starodubtsev, A. (2023). Patterns of International Organizations’ Engagement in Reform and Policy Making in the Post-Soviet Space. East European Politics, 40(2), 299-321. [in English]

Demchenko, I. (2011). Decentralized Past: Heritage Politics in Post-Stalin Central Asia. Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism, 8(1), 65–80. [in English]

Deschepper, J. (2018). Between future and eternity: a Soviet conception of heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25(5), 491–506. [in English]

Finnemore, M. (1993). International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and Science Policy. International Organization, 47(4), 565-597. [in English]

González, P. A. (2016). Communism and Cultural Heritage: The Quest for Continuity. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(9), 653–663. [in English]

Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J.E. (2000). A Geography of Heritage. Power, Culture and Economy. Arnold. [in English]

Gullette, D., & Heathershaw, J. (2015). The Affective Politics of Sovereignty: Reflecting on the 2010 Conflict in Kyrgyzstan. Nationalities Papers, 43(1), 122–139. [in English]

Hall, S. (2005). Whose Heritage? Un-settling ‘the heritage,’ re-imagining the post-nation. In J. Littler & R. Naidoo (Eds.), The Politics of Heritage. The Legacies of Race (pp. 23-35). Routledge. [in English]

Harvey, C. (2001). Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: Temporality, Meaning and the Scope of Heritage Studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), 319–338. [in English]

Haydaraliyeva, D. (2023). Manufacturing National Identities in the Post-Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan: A Study of Controversial Conservation Practices in Samarkand and Shakhrisabz.” Slavic & East European Information Resources, 24(4), 258-294. [in English]

Kaulen, M. E. (2012). Muzeefikatsiya Istoriko-kulturnogo Naslediya Rossii. Esterna. [in Russian]

Laruelle, M. (2007). Religious Revival, Nationalism, and the ‘Invention of Tradition’: Political Tengrism in Central Asia and Tatarstan. Central Asian Survey, 26(2), 203–216. [in English]

Pugachenkova, G. A. (1982). K sozdaniu regionalnoi inithiativnoi grupy respublik Sredniej Azii Sovetskogo komiteta IKOMOSa. Arkhitektura i stroitelstvo Uzbekistana, 6, 31-33. [in Russian]

Rampley, M. (2012). Contested Histories: Heirtage and /as the Obstruction of the Past: An Introduction. In M. Rampley (Ed.), Heritage, Ideology and Identity in Central and Eastern Europe. Contested Pasts, Contested Presents (pp. 1-19). The Boydell Press. [in English]

Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. Sage. [in English]

Shaw, C. (2011). The Gur-i Amir Mausoleum and the Soviet Politics of Preservation. Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism, 8(1), 42-63. [in English]

Shchenkov, A. (2004). Pamyatniki Arkhitektury v Sovetskom Soyuze. Ocherki Arkhitekturnoi Restavratsii. Moskva: Rossiyskaya akademiya arkhitektury i stroitelnykh nauk. [in Russian]

Siegelbaum, L. H., & Moch, L. P. (2016). Transnationalism in One Country? Seeing and Not Seeing Cross-Border Migration within the Soviet Union. Slavic Review, 75(4), 970-986. [in English]

Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage. Routledge. [in English]

Smith, S. A. (2015). Contentious Heritage: The Preservation of Churches and Temples in Communist and Post-Communist Russia and China. Past & Present, 226(10), 178–213. [in English]

St. John Simpson, Georgina Herrmann: “Central Asia,” BANEA [British Association for Near Eastern Archaeology] Newsletter, 1991. [in English]

Swenson, A. (2013). The Rise of Heritage: Preserving the past in France, Germany and England. Cambridge University Press. [in English]

Swenson, A. (2016). The First Heritage International(s): Conceptualizing Global Networks before UNESCO. Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism, 16(1), 1–15. [in English]

Tuyakbayeva, B. (2008). Almaty: drevnii, srednevekovyi, kolonialnyi, sovetskii etapy urbanizatsii. Almaty: World Discovery. [in Russian]

UNESCO Courier, Special edition (2003, April). The Silk Road was the Most Fertile Approach to translating the concept of interculturality (pp. 12-14). [in English]

UNESCO. (2008). The Silk Road Project. Integral Study of the Silk Roads: Roads of Dialogue, 1988-1997. CLT/CPD/DIA/2008/PI/68. [in English]

UNESCO. (2010). The Power of Culture for Development. CLT.2010/WS/14. [in English]

Walsh, K. (1992). Representation of the Past. Museums and Heritage in the Postmodern World. Routledge.3. [in English]

Wiktor-Mach, D. (2019). Cultural heritage and development: UNESCO’s new paradigm in a changing geopolitical context. Third World Quarterly, 40(9), 1593-1612. [in English]

Wimbush, S. E. (1984). The politics of identity change in Soviet Central Asia. Central Asian Survey, 3(3), 69–78. [in English]