Introduction

Central Asia is often described as a crossroads region, where many societies, civilizations, and empires encountered each other and left enduring legacies that transcend geographic boundaries and time periods. As a result of this complex and multi-layered history, scholars are presented with a landscape that is fraught with center-periphery relations, necessitating individuals to navigate a complex and multilingual source base that informs current and future historiography of the region.^[1] Although a considerable number of these sources remain underutilized due to political repression and a lack of academic training in regional languages, scholars nevertheless have produced a centuries-long scholarly record that reflects rigorous debates and approaches to the historiography of the region, as well as future directions in Central Asian Studies.^[2]

Since 1991 (some would argue even before), scholars have been confronted with a recurring question: how should we study this region now that we are thirty-three years into the post-independence era? What new conceptual frameworks should we develop to study this region and its multicultural, multi-ethnic, and multireligious past and present? To address these questions, we must deepen our collaboration with scholars based in the region to evaluate sources and raise awareness of hidden or restricted, unpublished collections and archives. Even after thirty-three years, many collections and sources remain out of reach for most scholars in Central Asian Studies. Whether it is due to the lack of knowledge of regional languages or because students are trained to study Central Asia through a Russian or Soviet lens, knowledge produced on Central Asia remains scattered, often compartmentalized, and elusive to students and early career scholars. Furthermore, scholars from the region and outside of the region face unique challenges and disparities that have produced academic silos, which extends to publishing and transnational collaboration.

Researchers for the most part can examine a variety of perspectives emanating from “centers” inside and outside the region, often through the lens of dominant cultures and languages.^[3] Long periods of imperialism and colonialism have further exacerbated the imbalance in the production of knowledge from and between “centers” to “peripheries.”^[4] The greater inclusion and (re)discovery of oral histories, traditional knowledge, and genealogies outside of “official” histories and narratives, has led to a period of renewed interest from scholarly groups and an opportunity to reconceptualize Central Asian historiography. Yet disruptions and censorship apparatus enacted by authoritarian governments continue to hinder the reconstruction of the cultural and intellectual history of Central Asia.

This collective work is the result of the Central Asia Research Cluster, a two-year transnational project that brought together scholars from Central Asia and other parts of the world to collaborate on a joint publication. We explored the theme of Knowledge Production and the Periphery Revisited and embraced the challenge to de-center “centers” and “peripheries” through the chapters included in this collective work. The production and dissemination of knowledge from “centers” and “peripheries” has produced numerous information networks and conduits through which the center-periphery relationships are shaped, repurposed, and continuously renegotiated. Our goal was to bring together an interdisciplinary group of scholars, archivists, and librarians to examine the roots of knowledge production and preservation in Soviet and Post-Soviet Central Asia, as well as to recontextualize the cultural heritage, histories, and memory institutions that illuminate the many layers of center-periphery relations at local, national, and regional levels.

The contributions in the volume fall into three broad categories. The chapters in the first section are connected through the themes of art, literature, and (built) environment. In her analysis of the literary works of Chingiz Aitmatov and Hamid Ismailov, although published more than thirty years apart, Caterina Re demonstrates the works’ strong interconnectedness through shared Central Asian themes and contextual elements. Jeanine Dağyeli and Anastassiya Kulinova examine the ways in which contemporary Central Asian artists develop their own unique expressions of ecocriticism from a region where neither established Western theories nor their postcolonial counterparts fully apply. Kateřina Zäch, in turn, explores critical aspects of infrastructure to highlight the significance of preservation efforts in contemporary Kyrgyzstan.

The second section of the volume foregrounds ethnic and religious minorities in Central Asia in a variety of ways. Chorshanbe Goibnazarov analyzes music production and consumption in Badakhshan, Tajikistan, as a reflection of its local landscapes and geography. The chapter of Kim Lacey highlights the rich insights that oral songs offer into how the Korean diaspora on the move in the Russian Far East and later in Soviet Central Asia negotiated shifting borders and rapidly changing surroundings. The work of Eric Seitov examines the role of collective memory in the social lives of Imamite Shias (Central Asian Iranians) in present-day Bukhara.

The chapters in the third section address processes of colonial and post-colonial state and nation building. Zolboo Sandagjav traces the development of early twentieth-century Mongolian nationalism through a microhistory of the life and works of the Mongolian historian Magsar Khurts. In turn, Ulzhan Tuleshova analyzes the significant roles that Kazakh sultan dynasties played in the profound transformations that took place in the Kazakh Steppe in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, from the initial establishment of colonial rule by the Russian Empire to the subsequent transition to Soviet rule. Beibit Shangirbayeva juxtaposes the Kazakh nomadic bi institution (traditional judiciary system) from the medieval and early modern periods with the role of the Council of the bis in present-day Kazakhstan since independence. Lastly, Ulbossyn Parmanova’s chapter traces the origins of alphabet reforms in Imperial and Soviet Central Asia and beyond, and the ways in which the reforms sought to limit educational advances in the region as well as the work of regional intellectual movements.

As Central Asian researchers are underrepresented in published works on this region, transnational collaboration with scholars in Central Asia and other areas outside of North America was central to this project. An integral part of tracing knowledge production and foregrounding marginalized, “peripheral,” voices and archives is a refusal to replicate the often deeply hierarchical and exclusionary practices of academic publishing outlets. This volume instead proposes a radically different publishing process: one that holds space for the voices and individual needs of authors; that prioritizes relationship-building and mutual support; and that breaks barriers to make the process more redistributive and equitable. To offset some of the barriers and inequities associated with academic publishing, we developed a framework that considered the full cycle of producing a manuscript, from the proposal stage to the submission process. We created a supportive environment for authors, most of whom were postdoctoral and early career scholars. This included informal discussions, peer reading sessions, double reviews and feedback from the Central Asia Research Cluster Editorial Board members, and copyediting services throughout the manuscript development and publishing process.^[5]

In the introduction to the special issue on “Central Asian studies: 30 years since independence,” published in Central Asian Survey, Erica Marat suggests that we explore new innovative approaches that are inclusive of perspectives from researchers based in the region.^[6] We hope that fresh perspectives from authors in this collective work will encourage others to collaborate and co-produce knowledge with colleagues from Central Asia and other parts of the world.

Eva Rogaar, Katherine Ashcraft, and Joe Lenkart