Abstract
We analyze sacred sites in Ysyk-Kol Biosphere Reserve, Kyrgyzstan, from the commons perspective. There are some 130 sacred sites in the region, and these fit into the subcategory of cultural/spiritual commons within the broader category of new commons. They can be classified according to their biophysical characteristics, and the reasons why people visit them. Communities have developed rules to protect sacred sites, including the traditional institution of sacred site guardians, people who voluntarily take responsibility to look after a site. Sacred sites as commons have many similarities to conventional commons. But there are also some differences: the more people visit a particular site, the stronger is the ‘power’ of that site and more conservation effort is directed to it. This characteristic distinguishes sacred sites from commons characterized by subtractability. As community-conserved areas, sacred sites have the potential to contribute to biocultural conservation networks. They are an important means of expression and transmission of culture, necessitating recognition and support for the rights of their traditional caretakers and local communities.
Highlights
Much has been written about sacred sites, there is very little literature that examines them from a commons angle
Sacred sites are places in the landscape that have a special significance under local tradition, in indigenous contexts, such as Australia (Rose 2005) but even in contemporary Europe (Frascaroli 2013)
Defined by the Kyrgyz scholar Aitpaeva (2013, 7) as “areas of land and bodies of water, as well as constructions and items, which are spiritually and/or religiously meaningful for local people and where sacral practices are performed”, sacred sites fit into the broader classification of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) category of protected areas (BorriniFeyerabend et al 2004; Wild and McLeod 2008)
Summary
Much has been written about sacred sites, there is very little literature that examines them from a commons angle This is perhaps surprising because clearly sacred sites are shared resources and are significant in terms of biocultural conservation (Maffi and Woodley 2010; Gavin et al 2015). Sacred natural sites need to have some kind of public property status to be open to all potential visitors who may have relational values concerning that site In this regard, sacred natural sites may be similar, for example, to beaches where the public in many countries has traditional access rights, making beaches difficult to privatize and close public access (McCay 2008). Within Kyrgyzstan, sacred sites are the subject of some debate, with respect to their importance for Kyrgyz culture, their compatibility with fundamentalist interpretations of Islam (the dominant religion of the country), and their potential role in biodiversity and biocultural diversity conservation (Samakov and Berkes 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
